Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Food Industry

John Leech: If he will make a statement on the environmental impact of supermarkets and the food industry.

David Miliband: The food industry has a major impact on the environment, accounting for 14 per cent. of energy consumption by UK business and 7 million tonnes of carbon every year. The Government have implemented a number of measures under the food industry sustainability strategy to reduce negative impacts. I can tell the House that I am meeting the supermarkets today to discuss progress.

John Leech: Tesco is trying to build an 88,000 sq ft supermarket just outside my constituency near to Chorlton town centre, which would lead to even more congestion and pollution in the area, as well as impact on the viability of local shops. Will the Secretary of State commit to urgent discussions with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government with a view to protecting our local centres from these environmentally damaging developments?

David Miliband: The way in which the hon. Gentleman poses the question suggests that he knows that planning policy is not something that falls to DEFRA, but I am happy to say that I will look into the case, consistent with the important principle that Ministers do not interfere with planning decisions.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that some supermarkets, including Tesco, are slowly moving towards a much more positive environmental stance. Will he encourage them to take that aspect much more seriously and to put some serious money into local communities to improve the quality of the environment? Supermarkets are good in one area, and that is transport logistics. If Tesco's transport logistics expertise could be used, for example, in the waste industry—8 per cent. of truck movements in our country are waste being hauled on our motorways—we could quickly reap some serious economic and environmental benefits.

David Miliband: When I meet the supermarkets later today, I shall certainly ask Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's whether they agree that Tesco provides a model of good practice and see what reaction I get. I take my hon. Friend's point about transport logistics and waste. I was surprised to find that the supermarkets are on track, following the EU packaging directive, to reduce packaging by between 55 and 80 per cent. It is also worth mentioning—other hon. Members may raise it—the commitment in the energy review to ensure that some 5,000 medium-sized public and private sector organisations are part of a UK emissions trading system to deliver 1.2 million tonnes of carbon reduction every year. That is a major step forward, which I hope will command support throughout the House.

William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State comment on the policy of supermarkets importing cheap food from other regions of the world, such as south America, particularly in respect of the impact on the environment in those regions?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I think that I am right in saying that about 76 per cent. of food bought in the UK is domestically produced, though that is down by 5 or 6 per cent. over the last decade. Ensuring that local supply chains are strong and that local food producers are able to get their goods to market efficiently and effectively while securing a fair price for what they produce is critical. The hon. Gentleman also made the important point that global trade can benefit developing countries, or countries from which we import food, and be an important part of their standard of living. That can be done in either a more or less environmentally sensitive way. From our point of view, it is imperative that it is done in a more environmentally sensitive way.

Andrew Turner: The Isle of Wight is not entirely devoid of natural resources, but two Tesco-size lorries cross the Solent every year for every man, woman and child on the island to serve its supermarkets. At the same time, we produce a huge amount of agricultural produce ourselves. What can the Secretary of State do to reduce the food miles, to which the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) referred, that severely damage the environment?

David Miliband: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to say that he was one of the natural resources of the Isle of Wight, which would be a point of more contention than the need to reduce food miles. The most important thing is for the Isle of Wight to maximise its agricultural production in ways that local consumers want to buy. In the end, local food producers rather than the Government will be the key to the supply chain. Having said that, it is an important part of our strategy to help support local farmers to diversify and ensure that they are able to serve local markets in the most effective way.

James Paice: It is good to hear the Secretary of State saying those words, but I remind him that three years ago his predecessor launched the Government's public sector procurement initiative, saying:
	"Sustainable food procurement isn't just about better nutrition, it's about where the food comes from, how it is produced and where it ends up."
	Three years later, his Department has said that it does not know how much publicly procured food is of British origin. Given that the Secretary of State is rightly seeking to atone for many of the failings of his predecessor, may we now expect him to get to grips with the whole issue of public procurement? There is £1.8 billion worth of publicly procured food bought in this country: surely that is the way for the Government to set an example to supermarkets and the food industry on how to reduce food miles.

David Miliband: I am trying to build on the successes of my predecessor in a range of important areas, including agriculture and the environment. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the Sims report, because the issues of public procurement that he raises are very important. The report was published just two months ago and was an independent study by an experienced and respected business figure, who examined the whole £150 billion of public sector procurement and how it could be done more sustainably. I am also sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the commitments made not only by me, but by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to see the report and its recommendations through and deliver some of the gains that the hon. Gentleman wants to see.

Uncropped Field Margins

Robert Goodwill: Whether he has made an assessment of the environmental and economic implications of requiring 2 m uncropped field margins.

Barry Gardiner: Yes.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the Minister for that short answer. I am sure that he would wish to enhance and augment the rural environment, but I am not sure that that is the best way to do it. It tends to penalise farmers who have retained their hedges and helps farmers who have bulldozed them. If the Minister took the opportunity to inspect some of those field margins, he would see that they are choked with pernicious weeds such as soft broom, sterile broom, wild oats and, in the east of the country, blackgrass. When the combine harvesters spread those around the fields, it results in the need for much higher levels of pesticide usage on arable farms. Can the Minister think of some more imaginative ways of utilising the same amount of land to stimulate farmers to do something to make a positive impact on the rural environment?

Barry Gardiner: It is interesting to be asked whether one has made an assessment and, when one says that one has, not then to be asked what it was before one gets the Opposition view. It is clear that cross-compliance measures impose a minimal burden on farmers, calculated to be of the order of only 2 per cent. of the single payment that they receive. That was for farmers who were not previously using what are generally accepted as good management practices. The fact is that most farmers did leave the 2 m margin, measured as it is from the centreline of the hedge. In respect of the environment and biodiversity considerations, the hon. Gentleman will know that as much as 70 per cent. of all the wildlife and biodiversity of a field is estimated to live in the hedgerow margin. Protecting them in that way is an essential part of delivering our 2010 targets.

Angela Smith: It is important that farmers should do their bit to promote biodiversity. Will my hon. Friend the Minister therefore do more and go further to encourage environmentally friendly stewardship of the land by farmers?

Barry Gardiner: We are looking at all sorts of ways to improve the management of our countryside and incentivise farmers to do so. There is a general consensus in the Chamber that cross-compliance and all the moves that have been made from pillar one to pillar two are ones that we would all support. We are moving in the right direction, which is paying farmers to provide public benefits, instead of the old system of paying for production, which disconnected farmers from their markets and was an inefficient way of doing things. However, it is essential that we have the flexibility to take into account the distinctive features of the English countryside, of which the hedgerow is one. I make no apology for protecting it.

Madeleine Moon: Does my hon. Friend agree that with 71 per cent. of British butterflies and 44 per cent. of British moths in decline, hedgerows and field margins are critical to ensuring diversity? Those creatures, which are important to the farmer for the fertilisation of his crops, should be protected.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes the important point that biodiversity should be seen in terms of the whole ecosystem. The pollination services provided by butterflies and other insects that inhabit hedgerows and the margins of fields are essential. Our 2010 biodiversity targets state that we must increase the number of farmland birds. There is a severe decline in the food that they depend on and that they feed to their chicks—butterflies, caterpillars and so forth—which is part of the problem. It is essential that we look at this issue as part of the whole environment, and that we address it in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Ivory Trade

David Taylor: What Government policy on the ivory trade is expected to be at the meeting of the convention on international trade in endangered species standing committee in October; and if he will make a statement.

Barry Gardiner: The United Kingdom Government will not have a vote at the standing committee in October. The UK will be represented as part of the European region, but the UK's position continues to be that we support the international ban on trade in ivory.

David Taylor: I welcome that answer. Any reopening of the ivory trade—by stockpile sales or more widely—would simply create a smokescreen and trigger further poaching of elephants for their ivory, especially in central and west Africa and Asia, where resources for enforcement of anti-poaching measures are at their thinnest. Will the Minister ensure that such points are vigorously made at the CITES conference, and will he involve the International Fund for Animal Welfare in tackling what is becoming a very serious problem?

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He highlighted stockpile sales, which is a critical issue to address. As he knows, there already is an international ban on the commercial trade in ivory, and the UK will not support any reopening of that trade. In 2002, the CITES parties drew a distinction between a general return to commercial ivory trade and one-off sales of legally acquired stockpiled ivory. The UK's position is clear: we will not agree to the one-off sales going ahead unless all the conditions to prevent a damaging rise in elephant poaching and any increase in the illegal trade have been fully met. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have already met IFAW and discussed this subject. I have asked it to help me look at the statistics that will under-gird those decisions and to prepare a response for me. I look forward to receiving it.

Local Environment Quality

Kali Mountford: What steps his Department is taking to improve local environment quality.

Ben Bradshaw: The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 has given local authorities and others important new tools to improve the quality of people's local environment. Other measures will ensure that the quality of air and water—already better than at any time since the industrial revolution—will continue to improve.

Kali Mountford: I hope that both you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister can at some point—perhaps over the summer—visit the beautiful constituency of Colne Valley and see how our environment has been enhanced by the hard work of community groups such as the Friends of Beaumont Park, which is trying to create an eco-park. Would it not therefore be a great pity if the 2005 Act was not used to its fullest extent by local authorities to ensure that the hard work of community groups is not undermined and that the area is not inundated with fly-tipping, litter and graffiti?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, and I will look at my diary to see whether I can fulfil my hon. Friend's invitation during August, when I intend to spend quite a bit of time travelling the country extolling the benefits of the 2005 Act and encouraging local authorities—as she is rightly doing—to use the new powers that they have been given.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister accept that the quality of our countryside is critical to the environment of the United Kingdom? Will he further accept that if we are to maintain the quality of our rural areas and our countryside, farmers need to be able to make a profit from what they produce on the land, and land has to be farmed? Currently, farmers are under huge pressure—dairy farmers in particular—not least from the major superstores. Will the Government take steps to protect the rural environment to ensure that our farmers, who work hard seven days a week—particularly if they are livestock farmers—are able to make a proper living and can maintain the countryside for the people of the United Kingdom?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to lots of very important issues to do with rural areas and agriculture that are not strictly related to local environment quality. However, if you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to answer.
	I agree that it is important that agriculture is put on a profitable footing, and that is the aim of the Government's sustainable food and farming strategy. It is also very important that farmers are rewarded for the public benefits that they provide, and we are changing the way that agriculture is supported in this country to ensure that that happens. We accept that problems in certain sectors, such as the dairy sector, are making life very difficult for people. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a lot of dairy farmers, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take on board what he has said before speaking to the supermarkets later today.

Bob Blizzard: The Local Government Act 2003 provided that local authorities employing litter wardens to enforce the litter laws could use the proceeds from fixed-penalty fines to pay them. Some authorities use those powers with great success, but many—including my own—do not use them at all. As a result, streets remain dirtier than they need be, or council tax payers have to pay enormous amounts of money to get litter cleared away. Will my hon. Friend write to the authorities that are not using the powers and encourage them to do so?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I shall be happy to do that, and to take the matter up with my hon. Friend's local authority. It is a terrible shame when legislation that gains very strong support in this place, and which gives local authorities powers that they have asked for over many years, is not used. The powers in the 2003 Act enable authorities to deal with the sort of local environmental issues that really matter to people, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the fact that they are not used indirectly piles more costs on council tax payers as a whole.

Greg Hands: Will the Minister look at the impact on the London environment of helicopter noise? It is probably the number one issue in my post bag at the moment. No one seems to know why there has been such a big increase in helicopter traffic over London, which does not appear to be monitored by any Government agency. The London assembly has conducted an inquiry, but it has barely scratched the surface. Will he speak to other Ministers about setting up a proper monitoring system for helicopter noise over London?

Ben Bradshaw: I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition might be making some contribution to the increase in helicopter noise, given his penchant for helicopter travel. However, I shall be delighted to investigate the matter and get some answers to the hon. Gentleman's question. I have a London flat, and I have noticed exactly the phenomenon that he has described, with helicopters disturbing our peace and quiet by hanging in the air for hours on end. I have no idea what they are doing, and I shall be delighted to find out for the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Ainsworth: Yesterday, the Secretary of State made a speech that began with a reference to the great stink—not the one that is increasingly emanating from this discredited and sleaze-ridden Government, but the one in 1858 that led to the creation of the London sewer system. What action is the Department taking to improve the local environmental quality of the Lea valley in east London, where hundreds of thousands of tonnes of raw sewage are pumped into the Thames basin every year? Two years ago, a former Environment Minister said that doing nothing about the scandal was not an option. What has been done since, and what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, bearing in mind the possible impact that that remnant of the great stink could have on the London Olympics?

Ben Bradshaw: I am informed that my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who is sitting on my left, has had such a meeting recently, and also that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), who is sitting on my right, has had a meeting with British Waterways on the matter. I am sure that both of my colleagues are determined to ensure, between them, that the development to which the hon. Gentleman refers is carried out in a sustainable way, and that the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes are addressed.

Christopher Huhne: Local environment quality depends crucially on the Department's expenditure on policing environmental crime and on flood defences. However, there have been reports recently that the Secretary of State has asked for expenditure cuts in the environmental parts of his budget in order to offset overruns in other areas, perhaps particularly single farm payments. Will the Minister say whether the Department is asking environmental budget holders, including the Environment Agency, to reduce their budget allocation? Will he tell the House the implications for the understanding that the Department reached with the Association of British Insurers to continue to provide insurance cover for more than 100,000 home owners at risk of flooding? Will he assure them that the allocations for flood defences will not be cut?

Ben Bradshaw: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment met the ABI recently. On his more general point, like all Departments, ours is constantly looking for ways of spending our money more effectively and efficiently. Inevitably, things come up such as the recent preparations to deal with the possible outbreak of avian flu and the problems of the single farm payment but, since we have been in power, the Government's grant in aid to the Environment Agency, another issue to which he referred, has increased substantially from about £160 million to over £600 million a year.

Scallop Dredging (Lyme Bay)

Adrian Sanders: What advice he has received from English Nature about damage caused to marine reefs in Lyme Bay as a result of scallop dredging.

Ben Bradshaw: English Nature has advised that increased scalloping is having a significant impact on important reef features and it has recommended the closure of 60 square miles of Lyme bay. I would prefer, and am still hoping, to find a voluntary solution to the problem, but if that proves impossible I am prepared to introduce compulsory measures to protect the local marine environment.

Adrian Sanders: I am extremely delighted to hear that response. I hope that the Minister will reach a conclusion soon on that matter because the damage that is being caused to the reef system is having both an environmental and an economic impact on sea angling and diving, which are major factors for the tourism industry in south Devon.

Ben Bradshaw: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I, too, want to reach a decision on the matter as soon as possible.

Geoffrey Cox: The northern Devon fishing industry is struggling at the moment to create and to promote itself as a sustainable fishery off Lundy and around the north Devon cost. There is worrying evidence that Belgium beam trawlers are changing to otter trawlers and hoovering up fish in the Bristol channel in a way wholly contrary to it remaining a sustainable fishery. Will the Minister look into that and do something about it if he finds that that practice is happening?

Ben Bradshaw: I will happily look into that, although I am not quite sure what it has to do with the English Nature's recommendation on Lyme bay.

Bill Wiggin: I did not feel that that answer was very helpful from the Minister. I want to know how long it will take him to decide whether to support what Devon Wildlife Trust and English Nature have asked for, which is the enforcement of a no-dredging zone covering 10 per cent. of Lyme bay, although when I googled DEFRA and indecision, I got 699 hits on badger culling, TB in cattle, partial payments, coastal access, greyhound welfare, delaying the marine Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite wide of the question.

Emissions Trading Schemes

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent progress has been made with the extension of emissions trading schemes at international level.

David Miliband: Thanks to strong UK leadership during our G8 and EU presidencies, the international framework is now in place to deliver actions such as emissions trading that are needed to combat climate change.
	I have already announced the UK's proposal for the next period of the EU's emissions trading scheme, delivering additional savings of 8 million tonnes of carbon each year. Emissions trading is here to stay and the Government are committed to making it work and to extending it to new sectors, as well as exporting its benefits to other parts of the world that may be interested. Our actions to date have given us leverage as we press for a new international agreement on stabilising carbon emissions.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is obviously welcome that some progress was made at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg on issues that were on the agenda, but what are the prospects of getting countries outside the European Union involved in such a scheme? There has been talk about a wider international scheme for some time, and Britain has been taking the lead on the issue, but matters are moving forward fairly slowly—they need to be brought forward much more quickly. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated what progress has been made outside Europe as well as within the European Union.

David Miliband: I share wholeheartedly my hon. Friend's commitment to the urgency and importance of moving forward. I can say two things. First, Australian states, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and a number of US states are introducing emissions trading schemes, which is interesting evidence of the progress of the idea. Secondly, I can assure him that in the Gleneagles dialogue that will continue in Mexico in October and then at the Nairobi conference of the United Nations in November, the Government will be pushing hard to build consensus on the importance of the international stabilisation goals in respect of carbon dioxide and to take forward the agenda on the global mechanisms, which include all the major players, for finding the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions, which we must do sooner rather than later.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will recognise the importance of persuading the US Administration to engage positively on the issues of climate change and emissions trading. Given that we have discovered this week that the special relationship seems, shall we say, a little one-sided, how confident is he that British efforts to persuade the Bush Administration to take a responsible lead in global emissions trading will be met by more than a shrug and a yo?

David Miliband: I have to say that, even for a sleepy Thursday before a summer recess, that was pretty hard work. I say three things to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is important that we keep up the pressure at all levels—at governmental level, and, as I said in the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday, at business level and state level. He will know that 240 US cities are now party to the Kyoto agreement, covering 45 million citizens. Secondly, in respect of the intergovernmental level, we are working hard as part of the Gleneagles dialogue— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) keeps on shouting from a sedentary position, "How?" He obviously does not know that Governments speak to each other and that they have a process that leads to decisions being made at a certain time. It would be foolish of me to announce decisions in advance of meetings—[ Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman listened, he might learn something. It would be foolish of me to announce decisions now that will be taken at meetings in October and November.
	Thirdly, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) asked about confidence. I am confident that there is a growing global recognition of the urgency of this problem and that every part of the world will have to be part of the solution. Obviously, it is up to individual politicians to make the final decision about how they participate, but I am confident that the UK Government are exercising maximum leverage in every way to ensure that we get the change that we need.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a variety of options have been applied under the EU emissions trading scheme. For example, the Germans have chosen a fuel and technology-specific option, which has stimulated 11GW of investment in new clean coal technology. Has my right hon. Friend seen the paper provided by the clean coal task group, which suggests that the option in Britain will be biased in favour of gas? Will he look at that paper and meet the group with a view to bringing in an even playing field so that we get the investment in clean coal technology that is required?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raised an important point. I have not seen the paper, but I will make sure that it is in my box this weekend. I will look carefully at the best way of taking this forward. My hon. Friend will know that the energy review made strong commitments both to clean coal and, critically, to what is known as carbon capture and storage technology. After all, the Chinese are opening one new coal-fired power station every four days. It is essential, given the global nature of the problem, that technological developments such as carbon capture and storage, which offer the prospect of clean-coal energy production, are taken forward, not at the expense of energy efficiency measures, which are also critical, but as a complement to them.

Vincent Cable: As the Government's plans for new nuclear power hinge on an attractive carbon price, how does the Secretary of State propose to reform the emissions trading system to ensure that there is a guaranteed floor price?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman knows that, although there were predictions of doom when the figures for the first year of operation of the ETS were announced, it is significant that those predictions have not come to pass in respect of the carbon price. It has been relatively stable. The key is obviously phase 3 of the scheme after 2012. The United Kingdom Government will work closely with environmental groups and the business sector, which I have met already, to ensure that we have an independent, properly monitored and effective system for the EU ETS. In that context, it is significant that the European Commission has said that no caps for phase 2 will be below the current level of emissions. So scarcity will be built into the system. All caps will need to be consistent with the Kyoto protocol, which is also important.

Environment Agency (Grant in Aid)

Martin Salter: What the total grant in aid paid to the Environment Agency for (a) fisheries work and (b) navigation was in 2002-03 and is in 2006-07; and what its income from rod licences and boat registrations was in each year.

Ben Bradshaw: The agency spent £9.8 million of its grant in aid in England and Wales on fisheries and £7 million on navigation in 2002-03, and is currently intending to spend £9.4 million and about £12 million respectively in 2006-07. For the same periods, income from rod licences was £16.1 million and £20 million respectively, and income from navigation registrations was £3.3 million and £4.2 million.

Martin Salter: The Minister will be aware that the wholly unwelcome cut of £400,000 in the fisheries budget threatens adversely to affect the ability of the Environment Agency to combat the spread of lethal fish diseases such as the koi herpes virus, several outbreaks of which have occurred in the UK recently. On behalf of Britain's 3.5 million anglers, may I ask the Minister what action he proposes to take to prevent the spread of KHV, which is the aquatic equivalent of foot and mouth disease?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend, who is a champion in the House for the angling community, is absolutely right. The situation with carp herpes is serious, and in view of the latest developments it is my intention, subject to discussions with the devolved Administrations, to make KHV a notifiable disease.

Charles Walker: In view of the current drought and extremely high temperatures, what measures is the Minister taking to ensure that abstraction is kept at a manageable level and that our rivers are able to retain a healthy invertebrate and aquatic environment for the fish, mammals and birds that rely on it?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about some of the environmental effects of the current hot weather, which include carp herpes, which becomes a problem only above a certain temperature. As the temperature of lakes and rivers in the UK is rising above that temperature for the first time this year, there are some challenging situations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; water companies have a duty, especially in weather conditions such as these, to think carefully about levels of abstraction so that they do not make the already challenging environmental situation in rivers and lakes worse.

Biomass Task Force

Alasdair McDonnell: What actions fall to be taken by his Department in the implementation of the Government's response to the recommendations of the Biomass Task Force.

Ian Pearson: The Department, in close liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry, is actively engaged in driving forward the implementation of all the actions in the Government's response to the Biomass Task Force report.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his answer, but are the Government seriously committed? What serious capital grant is available for the biomass supply chain, whether from crops, trees or waste?

Ian Pearson: Yes, the Government are seriously committed to increasing biomass production. Our biomass capital grant scheme is allocating between £10 million and £15 million over the next couple of years; £66 million has been allocated to develop markets in biomass combined heat and power electricity generation and £80 million is available for microgeneration, which will include biomass technologies. There is a range of projects that we believe can come on stream. We would like to see the prediction in Ben Gill's report that biomass could actually meet 6 per cent. of heat and electricity generation by 2020 fulfilled.

Roger Williams: Biomass has greater potential to replace fossil fuels than biofuels, in the short term at least, yet it attracts little attention and less publicity. Have the Government made an assessment of the establishment grants paid to farmers and landowners to plant biomass, such as short-term coppice crops and miscanthus? Although I understood that the bio-energy infrastructure scheme was taking no further applications, the Government have stated that they might take a further round of applications. Will the Minister make a statement about that?

Ian Pearson: I have already outlined a number of schemes that the Government are introducing to help to encourage the growth of the biomass sector. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of biofuels, too. We need an increase on the current generating figures of 1 per cent. of heat and 1.85 per cent. of electricity from biomass sources, and we can achieve that by helping to stimulate the market through Government measures.
	As for the grant schemes for the growing of, for instance, miscanthus and short rotation coppice, they have been part of the rural development programme. We are negotiating and agreeing with the Commission a new rural development programme and we want to see encouragement for biomass as part of that programme.

John Grogan: Following on from the earlier question, are the Government now looking more favourably at wood coppice rather than miscanthus? Is that the Government's policy? There are some fears among growers that that is the way that the Government are going.

Ian Pearson: As a Government, we do not particularly take a view on whether miscanthus or short-rotation coppice or other biomass sources—for instance, woodchip—are favoured. We have a regime in place that will encourage the further development and growth of the biomass sector in the future. We believe that there is a lot more that the Government can do to encourage and stimulate the growth of renewables in this country and that renewables must be a vital part of our future energy mix.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Ben Gill, who is a constituent of mine in the Vale of York? Will he recognise that that work must now progress with some urgency, given that the British Sugar factory in York is due to close next year? The issue is not just about willow coppice—as the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said—but about exploring ways of turning sugar beet into bioethanol. That work must now proceed with some urgency.

Ian Pearson: I certainly pay tribute to the work of Sir Ben Gill. I had the pleasure of taking part in a meeting at the Royal show, which Ben chaired. In his typical, robust manner, he explained the importance of biomass to the future of agriculture across the United Kingdom. There are strong opportunities for the farming community to do more in the biomass sector. The hon. Lady mentioned sugar beet. She will probably be aware of a current project in Norfolk that is looking to grow sugar beet to produce bioethanol. That should come on stream in the near future. With the renewable transport fuels obligation coming into force from 2008 to 2010, there will be big opportunities for growers to contract supply to people who will generate biofuels.

Martin Horwood: I agree with the Minister's comment that there is a lot more that the Government can do in this area. On reflection, is not the Minister slightly embarrassed that the energy review made only the briefest mention in passing of small and medium-scale biomass and bioenergy generation, despite increasingly clear evidence that that smaller-scale generation offers a more efficient, economical, decentralised and secure renewable source? It has huge potential, as the Biomass Task Force rightly identified. Is it not true that in the area of biocrops and bio-energy, even the United States under George Bush is doing more on the ground than this Government?

Ian Pearson: If the hon. Gentleman looks in detail at the energy review, he will see that biomass features in the section on renewables and the section on transport. I repeat that the Government are taking forward a wide programme of action when it comes to biomass. We have identified some 65 actions that we need to take as a Government in response to Sir Ben Gill's report. We are getting on with it. We believe that the biomass market is growing and we have in place a package of measures to ensure that we help to stimulate further that demand.

Supermarket Carrier Bags

James McGovern: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on introducing a tax on supermarket carrier bags.

Ben Bradshaw: We have regular discussions with colleagues about incentives for more sustainable living. The Treasury has assessed the Irish plastic bags tax, following its introduction in 2002, and has concluded that there is no clear evidence that a tax would be effective on environmental grounds.

James McGovern: The Labour-led Scottish Parliament is undertaking a major review of the suitability of introducing a plastic carrier bag tax to reduce the number of the bags that are used and wasted each year. Given that the report is due in October 2006, and that the Irish carrier bag tax is completing its fourth year, will my hon. Friend commit to examining again the arguments in favour of a carrier bag tax when we come back from the summer recess?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not waiting until I come back from the summer recess. I spend a lot of time with officials discussing the merits or otherwise of a plastic bag tax. Indeed, we are working closely with colleagues in the Scottish Executive, who are still unconvinced of the environmental merits. The Irish Government are yet to conduct a proper review of the effectiveness of their plastic bag tax. Although we all share my hon. Friend's desire to reduce the unnecessary number of plastic bags that people use and discard when they shop, the whole life cycle analysis of the environmental efficacy of a plastic bag tax shows that it would not be as convincing as one might superficially think.

Nicholas Winterton: Good answer!

Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister be bold enough to tell colleagues in the Treasury that although there might not be environmental benefits, a tax on plastic bags would be broadly welcomed by people in this country and would send a real signal that we were serious about waste and the environment? Just go and tell the Treasury that!

Ben Bradshaw: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's advice—[Hon. Members: "Career advice."] Yes, perhaps his career advice was not as sound as his advice about other things usually is. I agree with him that some kind of measure to deal with the profusion of plastic bags in circulation would be popular. The women's institute, before which we should all genuflect, recommended such a thing just a few weeks ago. However, I repeat my point that was so well received by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). We can examine the overall economic benefits of the tax as it has been introduced in Ireland, where people have started to use more black bin liners and paper bags as substitutes. In the overall scheme of things, the impact on the environment has not necessarily been positive, but we keep the matter under review, and I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) makes about the tax's possible popularity.

Landfill

Tim Loughton: How much waste has been sent to landfill since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: From 1997 to 2005, we landfilled an estimated total of 100.8 million tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste. From 2001-02, which is the first year for which we have reliable figures, to 2004-05, we reduced the amount of that waste sent to landfill from 15.7 million tonnes to 13.9 million tonnes, thanks to the considerable efforts of the Government, local authorities and the public to recycle more waste.

Tim Loughton: It is welcome that the amount of landfill is being reduced due to an increase in recycling. Conservative local authorities consistently top the league of recycling rates. Why are there such big discrepancies between regions, with the north-east recycling 16 per cent. and the east recycling 29 per cent.? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to their target of reducing landfill to 75 per cent. of the 1995 production levels by 2010? Will they achieve that not by cheating—by having to export recyclables to China and other places—but by encouraging more close-to-home recycling in this country, less waste and less packaging in the first place?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, we want to do all those things. We are confident, although I acknowledge that the landfill targets that we have to meet in 2010 are extremely challenging and will require local authorities, the public and the Government to play their part. However, I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman made a party political point because his Conservative local authorities are very poor performers on recycling. With the exception of one, they have all failed to meet their recycling targets, and we have had to intervene with one of them to discuss why.

Mary Creagh: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Wakefield's Labour council on its magnificent 28 per cent. recycling target? The council is in discussions with his officials about the financing of a new private finance initiative facility to help us to drive further the recycling target to 50 per cent. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that we get the new facility, which is desperately needed for the entire Wakefield district?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend's Labour-controlled authority, which, in contrast to the Conservative-run local authorities mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), exceeded its recycling targets this year. It has done extremely well, and officials from my Department will meet officials from my hon. Friend's local authority next week to discuss the issue that she raises. I think that she will appreciate, too, that the Government have provided considerable support not just to her authority, but to many local authorities across the country, to help them to meet those admirable recycling targets.

David Heath: Significant progress has been made by local authorities in recycling domestic waste, but there is a complete blind spot with regard to trade waste, for which they do not have any responsibility. There are disincentives for companies to separate their waste at source. Companies in the restaurant and bar trade produce huge amounts of recyclable material that simply goes into the normal waste stream, and that is not sensible. Will the Under-Secretary address that problem as a matter of urgency?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter, which is one of the critical issues that we will address when we publish our revised waste strategy in the autumn, as a result of the consultation that we are carrying out. However, it would be wrong to give the impression that trade and commercial waste is not recycled, as a greater proportion of trade and commercial waste is recycled or reused than municipal waste. Although we want to raise levels for both, it would be wrong to suggest that all commercial and business waste simply goes into landfill—it does not. Again, the amount going into landfill has fallen dramatically.

Gregory Barker: Despite progress, we still lag far behind the rest of Europe in minimisation, reuse and recycling. Less waste is going to landfill, but under Government direction, in the next few years, there will be a massive increase in incineration across the country. Was it not deeply disappointing that the energy review, which is so timid and lacking in substance in its support for renewables, simply paid lip service to energy from waste, which was discussed in only one small box? It did not have anything new to say, and it did not make a single new proposal on the subject. Does not that depressing policy vacuum on progressive EFW confirm what we already suspected—that Government thinking on waste and incineration is still dominated by a backward-looking, outdated, unambitious, burn-and-be-done-with-it mentality?

Ben Bradshaw: I am trying to work out the point the hon. Gentleman was trying to make. If it was about the need for extra energy from waste capacity, yes, the Government accept that. If he was trying to make the opposite point, I have to tell him that I am often lobbied by Opposition Members who want more energy from waste. He is quite wrong to suggest that we did not feature energy from waste as a potential renewable energy source in the energy review—we did so, and our Department made darned sure that we did.

Carbon Emissions

Brian Jenkins: What assessment he has made of the contribution which could be made by farmers to reducing the UK's carbon emissions.

Barry Gardiner: The agriculture and forestry sector accounts for approximately 1 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. Farmers are contributing to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the growing of dedicated energy crops, the planting of new trees, and the growing of crops for the production of biofuels.

Brian Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that many of my farmers can no longer afford the capital investment needed to put a windmill on top of their house to generate power for their property? Oil prices are rising across the world, so is it not about time that the Government took biofuels seriously and started to invest capital in the marketplace, in order to expand it? Are any grants available to my farmers that would allow that switching process to take place rapidly?

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have to encourage farmers—and, indeed, everyone—to make that transition. He will have heard the remarks that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), made earlier about the biomass capital grant scheme. In addition, the EU's annual €45 per hectare energy aid payment is available to farmers for purpose-grown energy crops that are grown on non-set-aside land. The Government do, in fact, take the issue extremely seriously, and in order to develop further the supply of biofuels, a renewable transport fuels obligation will be introduced in 2008. It will require 5 per cent. of fuels sold in the UK to come from a renewable source by 2010. I hope that that offers my hon. Friend and farmers in his constituency the encouragement that they need.

Peter Bone: Many farmers have been encouraged to have wind farms on their land on the basis that it is environmentally friendly, but of course it is not carbon-free. Has the Minister made any assessment of the carbon emissions caused by onshore wind farms?

Barry Gardiner: No, I have not made any assessment, but I am sure the Department has and I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman the statistics that we have on the matter. I am glad to hear support for wind farms coming from all parts of the House, because the Leader of the Opposition is famously known for referring to them as "bird blenders", which does not exactly encourage people to adopt the technology.

Biodiversity

John Robertson: What additional measures his Department has assessed to increase public awareness of the positive steps people can take to support biodiversity.

Barry Gardiner: We are encouraging people throughout the country to do their bit for biodiversity. Reducing household pollutants and disposing of them properly makes water cleaner and protects aquatic habitats. Recycling rubbish reduces landfill and the pressure on surrounding land. Volunteering and gardening encourage native wildlife. These are small actions, but they can make a big difference.

John Robertson: I am sure my hon. Friend knows that the general population are unaware of the small things that they can do to help biodiversity. In a press statement, he challenged people to do their bit for biodiversity. Unfortunately, the measures suggested will not reach the general population. Will my hon. Friend consider what additional steps he can take to ensure that the general public realise the small things they can do to help the environment?

Barry Gardiner: Yes, absolutely. I am happy to take up that challenge from my hon. Friend because it is important not just that we know what can be done, but that we publicise that and help people to become aware of the small incremental steps that they can take in their own lives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently spoke about the fact that the personal carbon footprint accounts for 40 per cent. of the country's carbon footprint. We must be able to communicate to people the impact of their actions, so I shall take up my hon. Friend's challenge.

Greg Clark: The Minister mentioned gardens. Does he agree with the pop star Kim Wilde, who said this week that gardens have become a refuge for threatened wildlife? Given that our 15 million gardens represent a greater area than all our nature reserves put together, is it right that gardens are first in line for development?

Barry Gardiner: I want to take up the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes, without straying, as he tempts me to do, into planning matters, which are not properly my domain. The point that he makes is of fundamental importance. All of us who are privileged to have gardens have a responsibility to consider what we can do to generate habitats for wildlife and to make our gardens as environmentally friendly as we can. That is the important message that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get across, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Bovine Tuberculosis

David Drew: When he will announce the future strategy for dealing with bovine tuberculosis.

Ben Bradshaw: We launched our 10-year strategy in March last year. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the latest figures show a 34 per cent. reduction in cattle TB in Gloucestershire, his county, in the first five months of this year.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for his optimistic approach. It is fair to say that the problem will not go away. We have taken farmers up the hill in the expectation that there will be a new strategy, and there has been a massive consultation, which resulted in overwhelming opposition to a large-scale cull. We cannot leave it at that, but it is pleasing to hear that there are changes afoot. Perhaps that is to do with the nature of the testing, or perhaps it is to do with cattle-to-cattle transfer. The Government must say something about what their strategy will be, and I hope that will be not long delayed.

Ben Bradshaw: I did not mean to sound optimistic. I was simply stating a fact to my hon. Friend, and I am well aware of the potential for the figures to go back up again. Until we get a better understanding of what has caused the sudden and dramatic fall in new bovine TB cases, it would not be reasonable for him to expect the Government to make a decision one way or another on badger culling.

Daniel Kawczynski: May I inform the Minister that in the part of my constituency near the Welsh border—Minsterley and Pontesbury—there has been a huge rise in the number of bovine TB cases among the cattle of my local farmers, who are extremely concerned about it? Will he meet a delegation of Shrewsbury farmers to give them an opportunity to express their concerns to him?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I would be happy to meet a delegation of his constituents, although I would be extremely surprised if his area was unique in not having experienced a significant fall in bovine TB in the first five months of this year. I will check the figures, which I do not have to hand, and let him have them. There has been a 20 per cent. fall nationally, and the fall has been even more dramatic in some of the worst hot spots.

Eric Martlew: May I ask my hon. Friend not to rush into a decision on this very important issue? I do not think that there is any support in this House or among the general public for a mass cull. Where are we as regards developing a vaccine for this terrible disease?

Ben Bradshaw: We are already conducting field trials of a badger vaccine, and we are working out the best way of conducting similar trials on cattle. I do not think that my hon. Friend is right when he says that there is no support in this House for a cull of badgers. That is the official policy of the Conservatives and of the Liberal Democrats, but they have not quite explained how they would do it in an effective and sustainable way.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business up to and beyond the recess?

Jack Straw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 24 July—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill.
	Tuesday 25 July—Motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
	The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to any Act.
	The business for the week following the summer recess will be as follows:
	Monday 9 October—Remaining stages of the Road Safety Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 10 October—Second Reading of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
	Wednesday 11 October—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 12 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, followed by a debate on climate change on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
	Friday 13 October—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 16 October will include:
	Monday 16 October—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 12 October and 19 October will be:
	Thursday 12 October—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the WTO Hong Kong ministerial conference and the Doha development agenda.
	Thursday 19 October—A debate on the 28th annual House of Commons Commission report.
	I should like to remind the House that it agreed to sit from 11.30 am on Tuesday 25 July, and there will be no business next Tuesday in Westminster Hall.
	I should also like to tell the House that the state opening of Parliament will be on Wednesday 15 November.
	The House will rise at the end of business on 25 July and return on Monday 9 October. I have given serious consideration to the points made by Members on both sides of the House regarding the accountability of Government during the summer recess. I am pleased to inform the House that later today I intend to table a motion and an explanatory memorandum that will allow for the tabling and answering of named day questions and, if there is a need, written ministerial statements on specified days during the first two weeks of September. This information will thereafter be printed in the  Official Report.
	Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity to wish all Members of the House a productive summer recess in which they are able to see their families for a normal holiday period, and then able, as colleagues on both sides of the House always do, to devote time to their constituencies. I also give my thanks to the staff of the House for their continued support and to staff in Government Departments who provide briefings for my weekly business statement—although of course the answers are entirely my responsibility.

Theresa May: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall respond to everything that the Leader of the House set out—the business for next week and after the recess and the statement about recess questions.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that hon. Members will be able to table written questions during the recess, albeit for a limited period. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised the matter in business questions on 21 July 2005 at column 1415 of  Hansard, when he asked for immediate action. It was not quite immediate, but at least something has happened and the Leader of the House is to be congratulated on that. However, will he confirm that the extension for written questions includes those to the Home Office and that the Department will respond fully in the time set out? May I urge him to go further? What plans has he to extend the opportunities to ask written questions during the summer recess in future? He also announced provision for written ministerial statements. In the absence of the Order Paper, what plans has he to alert hon. Members to the statements either when they are made or through advance notice?
	I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week and the week after the recess. Yesterday, I welcomed his decision to change today's business to enable the House to debate the growing crisis in the middle east. As that crisis develops, a further statement might well be needed before the recess. Will the Foreign Secretary come to the House next week to update hon. Members on the situation and the Government's position?
	Sadly, today's debate has meant postponing the debate on international development. We previously had such a debate in Government time a year ago, on Africa. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that there will be a debate on international development as soon as possible after our return from the recess and certainly before the end of the Session?
	On Tuesday, many hon. Members were lobbied by constituents about cuts in physiotherapy services. I met Kate from Twyford, who told me that 2,500 physiotherapists will graduate this year and probably only 250 will get jobs because of cuts in the national health service. Last year, the Government encouraged universities to increase training places for physiotherapists. This year, more than 2,000 graduates will fail to get a job. When we return, may we have a debate on physiotherapy services?
	May we also have a debate in the autumn on Britain's influence in the world? Today's debate will concentrate on the middle east, but, on our role in world affairs, I was struck by the exchange between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, which was reported earlier this week at the G8 summit. The Prime Minister offered to visit the middle east to
	"try and see what the lie of the land is".
	The reply was:
	"I think Condi is going to go pretty soon."
	What did Prime Minister say?
	"Well, it's only if, I mean, you know, if she's got a, or if she needs the ground prepared, as it were. Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk."
	What a revelation. That was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speaking. First, it tells us what we have always known: the Prime Minister does not do anything, he simply talks. Secondly, what does it say about the UK? My noble Friend Lord Hurd once described Britain as punching above its weight in foreign affairs. Today, the Prime Minister sees himself as the warm-up act for the US Secretary of State. We need a debate on our role in the world.
	May we also have a debate on ministerial responsibilities? A review of four Departments has shown significant failure to deliver. On ability to plan resources, prioritise and deliver value for money, setting aside the Home Office's poor performance, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Department for Work and Pensions were
	"Not well placed to address weaknesses, urgent action needed."
	The Prime Minister's response was to say that the Departments' central headquarters would now focus on
	"high-level strategy and priority setting, managing performance and tackling failure and building up skills".
	What on earth have they been doing for the past nine years?
	Speaking of reviews, when the Government were first elected in 1997, the Prime Minister made much of his commitment to produce an annual report each year. On 18 July 2001, he said:
	"In respect of annual reports, it is important that we set out the Government's achievements and lack of achievements in whichever year we are in power."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2001; Vol. 372, c. 280.]
	The last annual report was published in 2000. When will the next one be published? May we have a debate before the end of the Session on the Government's record over the past year and a half?
	As we are approaching the summer recess, I do not want to over-burden civil servants with this task, so I shall offer some suggestions on what the Government's annual report might cover. It could include U-turns on home information packs, self-assessment tax returns, council tax revaluation, prison building, sentencing policy and police mergers. It could cover abandoned projects such as hospital star ratings, regional assemblies and the abolition of the Lord Chancellor. Further subjects might include the information technology projects left in chaos at the Child Support Agency, the Rural Payments Agency, the Criminal Records Bureau, the Passport Office and the NHS—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is going rather wide of the business question.

Theresa May: I am sure that the Leader of the House will ensure that all those issues will be addressed in the debate that, I hope, he will offer us on what the Government have been doing over the past year and a half. However, of all the areas in which we know that the Government have failed, we need to address the problems with the ID card scheme, the fact that fewer pupils from state schools are going to university, hospital closures, the wider gap between rich and poor, and the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is a laughing stock, the Prime Minister is a lame duck and the Government are in paralysis. I wish the Leader of the House and all right hon. and hon. Members a very happy and productive summer recess, and I join the Leader of the House in thanking the staff for all that they have done to support us over the past year.

Jack Straw: I thank the shadow Leader of the House very much for her remarks and compliments, which I take in the spirit in which they were intended. I hope that one of the things that she does over the recess will be to sack the person who writes her lines. I say that in a spirit of great affection for the right hon. Lady, but, honestly, after putting her up to do that awful number on pop song titles—which turned out to be inaccurate—and now this stuff, he really ought to be sacked.
	I shall now deal with the questions that the right hon. Lady raised. She asked whether notice of written ministerial statements would appear in advance, and the answer is yes. Notice will appear in the normal way in the Questions Book—the blues attached to the Order Paper—alongside the notice of questions. I will also talk to the Clerks Office, to the right hon. Lady and to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), about whether we can arrange for Members to receive electronic notice, particularly of the written ministerial statements, as Members will be at a distance. I want to ensure that this experiment works.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether there would be an opportunity for a statement on the crisis in the middle east. The answer is that there are Foreign Office questions next Tuesday, so hon. Members will have every opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and her ministerial colleagues. The right hon. Lady also asked whether there would be a debate on international development before the end of the parliamentary Session. The answer is that we hope so, but, given the other pressures on the parliamentary timetable and the buffers of the Queen's Speech, I cannot guarantee it. However, we will do our very best to have such a debate either soon or in the run-up to the Queen's Speech, this side of the year.
	The right hon. Lady made some remarks about the health service. I have been looking at the health service in her own constituency. There is greater competition for jobs in health care because we have greatly increased the number of places available. There used to be complaints that we were recruiting so many people from overseas. These days, thanks to the dramatic increase in places for nurses, for doctors, for paramedics and for physiotherapists, most recruitment can take place in the UK. Yes, of course there is competition, but I simply do not believe these statements that thousands of new staff will be unemployed. That is not the case at all. Meanwhile, I note that, in the Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead Primary Care Trust, there has been a 5.2 per cent. increase above inflation in real terms in a single year, and that the trust received three stars for its latest performance. In the same area, waiting lists are down by 10 per cent. since June 2002. It is very odd that that was not mentioned just now.
	In relation to the Home Office capability review, the right hon. Lady did not mention an increase of 440 in the number of police officers in her area and, of course, a big drop in crime. She did mention the DFES. Astonishing additional resources have been devoted to education, with primary school and secondary school results both up. She criticised the DWP's capability review, as a result of which unemployment in her area has been cut by more than half in nine years and long-term unemployment by two thirds.
	Lastly, the right hon. Lady asked about a debate on Britain's influence in the world, which I would be absolutely delighted to have. I make no criticism of one of my distinguished predecessors, both as Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, Lord Hurd, but it is impossible to survey the past nine years without recognising that Britain's influence in Europe, the middle east and across the world has greatly extended and increased compared with the previous 18 years.

Jim Devine: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2601, tabled in my name and that of many other Members?
	 [That this House calls on insurance companies to take action to reduce the travel insurance premiums charged to people who have suffered from serious diseases such as cancer; notes that premiums for people in such a position can be many times higher than otherwise quoted; and calls for action to be taken to lower premiums so that insurance costs do not prohibit former patients from travelling abroad.]
	The early-day motion concerns the excessive charges that insurance companies make to clients who want to go abroad and who have had serious illnesses but are in remission. For example, James Timmons in my constituency, whose case is highlighted in the  Daily Record today, received a minimum quote of £350 for insurance cover to go on holiday. That is more than the price of the holiday. May we have a debate on this issue?

Jack Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The truth is that it is our poorer constituents who get ripped off in this way. I am glad that he has raised the matter, and I will be pleased to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has responsibility for regulating the insurance industry.

David Heath: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. I am delighted that, even at this stage in the Session, it is not too late to introduce a new Home Office Bill, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, on Tuesday 10 October.
	I think that the Government intend to move a carry-over motion for the Welfare Reform Bill on 24 July. Carry-over is normally by agreement between all parties, so some discussions are necessary before the motion is moved. Before we get to that point, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Committee stage of that very important Bill is not truncated by Prorogation or for any other reason? Secondly, can it be ensured that the Committee has the necessary draft orders, which form a large part of the substance of the Bill, from the start of its proceedings?
	I welcome the Leader of the House's comments about questions during this over-long recess. The ability to put questions is important, and the ability of the Government to answer them equally so. Their record is not good over recent years. I put a named day question to the Home Office, inevitably, for 3 May, and did not receive a reply, which said that it was not prepared to answer me, until 13 July. The Treasury is even worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) tabled 15 questions for answer on the very important matter of fraud in the tax credits system, and received a single reply on Wednesday that did not answer the specific points raised. This is a key issue. If we are to hold the Government to account, there must be an understanding among Ministers and civil servants about what comprises an adequate response to a parliamentary question. Will he speak to his Cabinet colleagues and the head of the home civil service to ensure that proper answers are given?
	I welcome this afternoon's debate on foreign affairs. It is essential that we debate the grave situation in the middle east.
	Let me say in response to what was said by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that there has been a change of emphasis in Foreign Office policy even since Monday, when the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), made what I thought was an extremely well-balanced statement to the House. We heard the Prime Minister's replies on the same subject yesterday. As I have said in a speech on home affairs, we are not a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States, and our foreign policy must not appear to be dictated by the White House. That is an important issue, and I hope the debate will explore it.
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman will spend the recess on his soap box in Blackburn; I will spend it undertaking my usual tour of the 120 or so villages in my constituency. I know already that the questions I will be asked will be about closures of sub-post offices, the state of agriculture, police amalgamations, and the fact that although record amounts are being spent on the health service, hospital wards are still being closed.
	Will the Leader of the House ensure that on our return we debate all those important issues, so that I can tell my constituents "Fear not, your concerns will be raised as soon as Parliament resumes in October"?

Jack Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. It has been a difficult Bill to get right. I began the process back in 1997, after the Southall train crash. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind his welcome for the Bill when his colleagues next start delivering cheap shots about the number of Home Office Bills that have appeared over the past nine years. They say that there have been 54 of them, and indeed there have. The question is, which of those Bills should not have been passed?

David Heath: The ones we voted against.

Jack Straw: It is helpful to have that on the record. Many of the Bills that the hon. Gentleman voted against are the ones that are protecting our citizens and helping us to reduce crime. I am glad to have secured that admission from him.
	The Welfare Reform Bill is one of two measures that we intend to carry over. I hope that that can be agreed, but if it cannot, it cannot. The purpose of carry-over has been accepted by the House, and it is very sensible. It should be borne in mind that it does not make it any easier for Government to pass legislation, because we have to ensure that it is passed within 12 months of the date of its introduction; and of course the Bill will have a normal Committee stage.
	I recall hearing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions say that he would do his best to ensure that the principal draft orders were presented to the House, but I do not think he said that all of them would be. I will pass on to him what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	As for Home Office questions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present to make his daily statement or speech to the House. I am sure we all welcome that, but only those of us who have held my right hon. Friend's portfolio quite understand how it feels to wake up each morning and hear five stories about the Home Office, one of which you may know about, four of which you have not the first idea about, and all five of which you must answer for during the rest of the day. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the backlog of questions, and I can say on his behalf that he and his colleagues have made every effort to clear it.
	Ministers and officials must recognise the need for questions to be answered, but Members must recognise—and I am pleased to say that it has been recognised in all parts of the House—that if the Order Paper is overloaded with questions in industrial quantities, tabled by researchers and in some instances unseen by the Members concerned, there are bound to be logjams. It is a real problem. I am glad to see that Members agree with that.
	I am assiduous, as are all my colleagues, in ensuring that questions are answered whenever possible, but we have a problem in the House with researchers trying to prove a point, and with the TheyWorkForYou.com website, which seems to measure Members' work in quantitative rather than qualitative terms. That is an issue for the whole House, not just for Ministers.
	As for my soap box in Blackburn, I was indeed on it on Saturday and, I am pleased to say, received approbation—as ever—for what had happened on 8 July, after 18 years of my campaigning and being given the raspberry. In 1998 my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), then Secretary of State for Health, announced that there would be a new hospital in Blackburn. It has now been built, £140 million has been spent on it, and on 8 July it opened for business. That was a great day for a Labour Government and the people of Blackburn.

Frank Doran: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. It will be warmly welcomed, particularly in the workplace. I am especially pleased to learn that Scottish measures will be included, because I believe that in Scotland we have one of the highest rates of industrial death and injury. It is important for the Bill to complete its passage. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a carry-over; it is clear from the timetable that he has announced today that that will be necessary, and I hope that he will make every effort to ensure that it happens.

Jack Straw: I guarantee that the Bill will be carried over, and I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes it. I should explain that while many aspects of criminal law are devolved, the Bill involves health and safety, and the House decided in the Scotland Act 1998 that those matters were reserved. There has, however, been substantial consultation with the Scottish Executive.

Anne Main: The Government's avowed intention is to create further rail freight interchanges. I have met 400-odd constituents who are extremely concerned about the possibility of a 3.5 million sq ft interchange in the constituency. I would welcome an urgent debate on the future of rail freight and the positioning of rail freight interchanges, and I hope very much that the Government will have time to provide one.

Jack Straw: The hon. Lady raises a legitimate point, but it underlines the conflicts with which we must all deal. I have been in the House for quite a long time, and year after year there are debates in which Members call for more freight to be carried by rail. We are all up for that, but of course it means that there must be interchanges with roads, and those facilities must go somewhere.
	I will convey the hon. Lady's concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who deals with planning, but I hope she believes that in principle it is a good idea for more freight to be carried by rail. The amount of rail freight has increased considerably during the past nine years, and, as I have said, the interchanges must go somewhere.

John Battle: As chair of the all-party group on poverty, I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 2529, entitled "Lunch expenses for unemployed volunteers".
	 [That this House believes that volunteers play an important role in building and empowering communities and that volunteering should be encouraged for all; supports job seekers and the unemployed who make time to volunteer whilst also seeking employment; notes with dismay the recent Department for Work and Pensions booklet that states that volunteers on Income Support or Job Seekers Allowance will not normally be entitled to claim lunch as an expense; is concerned that the long-standing reimbursement of volunteers as a way of appreciating and recognising their input may be undermined; is further concerned that those least able to afford volunteering are more likely to be discouraged from doing so if reasonable expenses are not provided; notes that volunteering should not be considered 'basic needs'; and calls on the Department for Work and Pensions to promote volunteering as a benefit to job seekers and their communities, for which volunteers should have the right to claim reasonable and essential expenses.]
	This may seem a small matter. The motion refers to a booklet produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, "A Guide to Volunteering While on Benefits". The booklet is welcome, but buried in it is a small change in the guidance: the withdrawal of lunch expenses as a legitimate reimbursable claim. That will prevent many people on benefits from being able to volunteer.
	I think all Members will agree that volunteering is a route back to contact and work. The matter is urgent, because the Government are introducing changes in incapacity benefit—which I hope we all support, because they will encourage people to return to work. If that small change in the guidelines were amended during the summer, while we are away, it would open up opportunities rather than closing them down.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend has made an important and persuasive point, and I take it on board. I promise that I will speak personally to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and propose that the change be made.

Iris Robinson: When the House returns, will the Leader of the House provide Government time, as a matter of urgency, for us to discuss the ramifications of the Government's decision to allow civil partnership couples in Northern Ireland to apply to adopt children in care, and the serious impact that it will have on the children in particular and on society as a whole?

Jack Straw: I note the hon. Lady's point of view, and I know that there are strong opinions on all sides. On the basis of my knowledge of the working of the adoption system, at least in Great Britain, I can say that the adoption authorities have the strictest duties—and in any event take the strictest care—not to permit adoptions unless they are satisfied that they are in the interests of the children concerned, and the courts would not do so either.

Keith Vaz: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of looking at early-day motion 2595?
	 [That this House congratulates Amitabh Bachchan on being awarded an honorary degree from De Montfort University, Leicester; notes his towering contribution to Indian cinema having received 10 Filmfare awards and being named BBC Star of the Millennium; recognises his work as a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF and as former member of the Lok Sabha, lower house of the Indian Parliament; and hopes that the award will continue to strengthen ties between the UK and India.]
	Will he join me in congratulating Amitabh Bachchan on getting his honorary degree from De Montfort university? Can we have a debate on the creative industries and the importance of links between Britain and India—not just in respect of the film industry, but in respect of the exchange of overseas students, which the degree personifies?

Jack Straw: I have indeed seen that early-day motion and I had the pleasure of meeting Amitabh Bachchan earlier today. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done for the creative industries both in India and in this country. If we could find the time, I would look forward to a debate on the creative industries, which are a major part of our export effort these days. It was interesting to learn from my hon. Friend that the Indian film industry, Bollywood, now uses many UK facilities because of their world-class excellence.

Bob Spink: I wish the Leader of the House and the whole House a good summer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is enjoying the weather and that people will make good use of sun creams, because 60,000 people are diagnosed with skin cancer and 1,700 die from it every year, with most of the damage done in childhood. However, sun creams are not classed as health products, which they should be, so they attract VAT. Can we have a debate in order to exercise the Chancellor on this matter and get VAT removed from these essential health care products?

Jack Straw: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's serious point first. It is extremely important for people to use proper sun cream or other sun blocks. It is not for me to speak on our VAT policy, but I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's point. Secondly, reference was made earlier to my soap box sessions in Blackburn, which depend on good weather—indeed, they take place only in good weather. My constituents have often heard me refer to the sunshine and to the fact that there has been a lot more sunshine since people voted Labour in 1997.

Tony Lloyd: May I once again refer to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill? It will be strongly welcomed by the many people who have lost family members in workplace deaths, particularly when caused by reckless employers from the Herald of Free Enterprise to the railway disasters, although they can sometimes be caused by the smallest firms in the backstreets of our towns and cities. In view of the wise decision on mesothelioma in the Compensation Bill and the progress made on the Warwick agreement, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate between now and next Tuesday on the rights of employees at work and the role of the trade unions and the Government in working together to produce a better Britain?

Jack Straw: I would like to have a debate on that but, sadly, I do not think that we have the time between now and next Tuesday, which is a shame. I should have said earlier to several hon. Members who raised the issue that the summer recess Adjournment debate on Tuesday offers the opportunity to raise these important matters. I am grateful for the welcome for the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. The ultimate test of its success will not be the number of convictions that follow it, but whether it changes the behaviour of business managers, resulting in far fewer deaths from the sort of major accidents that we have seen in the past.

Nicholas Winterton: I warmly congratulate the Leader of the House on his announcement of the tabling of named-day written questions during the recess, which partly meets the recommendations of the Procedure Committee a year or two ago. Will he give an assurance that that facility can be extended in future years?
	I am happy to join in the House's general euphoria about the approaching recess and to add my good wishes to those of others. I also warmly thank the Government for the announcement made at Farnborough air show about the award to BAE Systems of a contract for 12 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft. On behalf of the management and work force, I am most grateful to the Government. However, that leads me to my real question. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on manufacturing industry and the different sectors of manufacturing that are of strategic importance to this country? Having such a debate at the earliest opportunity is vital. Manufacturing is in difficulty and we must maintain the strategic sectors for the benefit of this country's security.

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the introduction of new arrangements for parliamentary questions. I intend that when we return in October, we have the opportunity to debate the summer recess, which is a matter for the House rather than the Government. The experience of the new arrangements for parliamentary questions and written ministerial statements can be taken into account in those debates. I thank the hon. Gentleman for being one of those people who have prodded me on the issue.
	On BAE Systems, I also declare an interest in that many of my constituents work for the organisation and I am glad about the announcement. I am also happy to pass on the request for a debate on manufacturing, which faces a paradoxical situation. For example, car production is not quite at its peak level, but at 1.6 million units, it is well above the trough of 900,000 to which it fell in the early 1980s, and we are exporting cars around the world. Aerospace is a world beater and both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are well seized of the importance of maintaining manufacturing's output, albeit in a context in which employment levels may well reduce. One of the key challenges is to see increases in productivity beyond the trend rate.

Jessica Morden: I believe that the Department of Health is about to publish its review of communications systems in hospitals, which includes looking into the exorbitant cost—up to 49p a minute—of telephone calls from patients in hospitals. That greatly concerns my constituents, so will my right hon. Friend make time for a ministerial statement when the report is published?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The issue was also the subject of a critical report last week, so I will pass on her concerns.

Peter Bone: In a recent parliamentary answer, it was stated that in 2004 there were 103,000 prescriptions for diamorphine hydrochloride, falling to 61,000 in 2005 due to a shortage of supplies. That has led to seriously and terminally ill patients not being able to receive the pain relief that they so desperately require, resulting in unnecessary suffering. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement before the summer recess?

Jack Straw: I understand the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's point. I will not be able to get the Secretary of State to come before the House, but I will certainly ensure that she knows about the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Chris Mullin: I welcome the announcement that we will be able to table some written questions during the recess and that some statements will be made in September, but I put it to the Leader of the House that the ability to table written questions is no substitute for the House actually sitting. Does he share my hope that this will be the last of 75 to 80-day recesses, which bring us into such discredit with our constituents? Can we revert to the system that, after all, the House agreed to previously?

Jack Straw: I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about that matter. May I say that, since I uttered some words in his support, I have rather felt that a fine career was about to go down the tubes as a result? It is absolutely clear that as the House took the original decision in 2002, any change to it must be made by the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect his view to receive unanimous support.

Pete Wishart: Has the Leader of the House seen the opinion poll in Scotland's largest selling Sunday newspaper, the  Sunday Mail, which showed that one third of English people now want independence for England? They join the more than half of Scots who want Scottish independence. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that represents a seismic shift in the relationship and arrangements between our two nations? Does he also recognise the frustration felt in England about the current constitutional arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the UK? Given that the Conservatives chickened out of a debate on that matter, will the Government hold a debate as soon as we return after the recess?

Jack Straw: We have had loads of debates on that, but I am always happy to debate it. What I find, not least on my soap box in Blackburn, is that people understand how profoundly damaging such changes in the way this House operates would be, with a two-tier system of Members of Parliament and extraordinary legal arguments about whether a matter was English or Scottish. Scotland benefits from the Union, and so does England, and it would be to the detriment of the whole of the United Kingdom if we were to follow the irresponsible path proposed by the Leader of the Opposition last month—but not this month—for a two-tier system of Members of Parliament.

Ken Purchase: As I go around my constituency, I note with great pride the improvements in education. Regrettably, I spot a cloud on the horizon, although it is no bigger than a man's hand at present. Can we bring my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the House to deal with reports that suggest that the Government, through officials, are telling local authorities with school building programmes that they will not be successful unless that programme includes a commitment to an academy? Does my right hon. Friend realise that such a stand-off between the Government and local authorities condemns some of our children to schools such as those in my constituency that badly need replacing—for example, Heath Park—and perhaps delivers us into the hands of religious bigots, from whom children will not benefit, or indeed those who have £2 million to buy a school and whose egos need assuaging?

Jack Straw: I know of no case in which an academy has been established and religious bigots have been involved. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, however, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is fully apprised of it.

Edward Garnier: I know that the Leader of the House does not have a photographic memory, and he is probably unable to recall precisely the length of time it took for written parliamentary questions to be returned by his Department when he was Home Secretary. I appreciate what he said a few moments ago about the improvements that the Home Secretary is trying to engineer with regard to the length of time taken, but increasingly the Home Office is answering written parliamentary questions by saying that the information is not kept centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. Will the Leader of the House investigate that rubric to see whether it is simply a way of avoiding responsibility for answering the question and keeping proper information? Could he also assure me that the named-day system with which he will experiment in September does not lead to a named day in October? Will he also encourage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is pushing his luck.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in his place and he takes the same approach to parliamentary questions as I do: if the information is available or can be extracted from the Department, it should be provided. The last accusation that can be made against my right hon. Friend—or against me five years ago—is that he is keeping bad news from the House. He is presiding not over cover up, but an open up in the Home Office.
	On named-day questions, the idea is that three days will be named—Monday, Wednesday and Friday—in the first week of September for tabling the questions and the corresponding three days in the following week for answering them. I hope very much that they are all answered. My right hon. Friend will also confirm that I make myself unpopular with Cabinet colleagues if they do not answer questions on time.

Ian Austin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the  Express and Star and its superb campaign to highlight the noise, nuisance and danger caused by the illegal and antisocial use of motorbikes and mini motorbikes? Will he consider arranging a debate on the issue so that we could discuss how we can impose restrictions on their sale or a proper registration system, so that we can clamp down on those teenage Evel Knievels who disturb my constituents' peace and quiet and put at risk people using parks and open spaces for recreation or to walk their dogs?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just told me that tough measures are planned for such bikes. They are a real nuisance across the country and I congratulate the  Express and Star and my hon. Friend on that campaign.

Danny Alexander: The Leader of the House will be aware of the appalling decision by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to deny support services to deaf candidates taking exams in English and foreign languages, in many cases automatically depriving them of up to 20 per cent. of their marks, as drawn to the attention of the House in early-day motion 2615.
	 [That this House expresses concern that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will be removing certificate indications and exemptions from the aural section of GCSEs and A-Levels in foreign languages and GCSE English examination for deaf students in the United Kingdom; notes that the facility to use an oral communicator will be withdrawn in examinations for deaf students who use an oral/aural approach, meaning that those children will immediately risk losing at least 20 per cent, of their marks; regrets that these changes have been introduced with little understanding of the impact they will have on deaf and hard of hearing young people; believes that these changes discriminate against the country's 35,000 deaf children and that the current skills and training gap between deaf and non-deaf people will increase resulting in lower employment rates or lower grade work for disabled people; and calls on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to re-instate certificate indications for deaf candidates and human aids to communication for those that need them, to conduct a time-bound formal review into competence standards including how disabled candidates can demonstrate their competence using reasonable adjustments and to fulfil future legal obligations under the Disability Equality Duty to consult with disabled people and organisations representing disabled people before carrying out any further changes to examination arrangements for deaf and other disabled children.]
	Given that that decision will influence the choices that many of those students make about which exams to take, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills makes a statement to the House before the recess, reversing that decision or otherwise restating the Government's policy on it?

Jack Straw: I am very sympathetic to the points raised because, as the hon. Gentleman may know, I suffer from deafness. Indeed, I could not hear part of his question because it came from the wrong side, so I understand the problems. There will be an opportunity to raise the matter in the debate on the summer Adjournment on Tuesday, and I hope that he does so.

Gordon Prentice: My Friend the Prime Minister hinted a couple of weeks ago that there may be some fresh thinking on how the Government would consult the House on Trident. May I remind him of what we are demanding? We want a Green Paper setting out the options and we want a vote in this House.

Jack Straw: On the issue of timing, my hon. Friend, who is never impatient, will know that I cannot serve up a Green or White Paper now, but there will be a statement in advance of any debate. The position was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two weeks ago, when he pointed out—as my hon. Friend will recall—that we were the first Government to give the House a vote on a decision to go to war. Of course, we should involve the House fully in a decision as important as the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in practical terms it is inevitable that there will therefore be a chance for the House to express its view on that important matter in a vote.

Maria Miller: I call on the Leader of the House to arrange an urgent debate on the issue of permitted development rights and, in particular, how they relate to utility companies. The National Grid Company is planning a significant development of an electricity substation in an area of my constituency called Bramley Frith. Because of permitted development rights, the company does not have to make the details of the development known to the local community. The area is an important conservation area and the plans have already led to the closure of the only environmental education centre in north Hampshire, but no one can be held to account because the local community knows nothing about the plans. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the matter so that we may review the existing rules and try to make them more transparent?

Jack Straw: The hon. Lady makes a strong case. Although the powers of public authorities in respect of permitted developments are limited, I am surprised that information has not been made available to her constituents. I will refer the matter that she raises to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and the hon. Lady may wish to raise the issue in the debate on the summer Adjournment on Tuesday.

Geraldine Smith: One of the reasons why people in the north-east of England did not support regional government was that they did not wish to see an extra layer of politicians. However, there is a need for more regional accountability, especially with so many quangos in operation. Will my right hon. Friend consider the idea—perhaps over the summer—of having Grand Committees of the regions or perhaps regional questions, or both?

Jack Straw: As a fellow north-west Member of Parliament, I am happy to think about both ideas, without commitment.

Justine Greening: I wish to raise with the Leader of the House the tragic case of my constituent, Mr. Roy Harward, who is suffering from mesothelioma and to ask whether we may have a debate on the treatment of—not compensation for—that disease. One drug, Alimta, is licensed in this country to treat the symptoms and pain caused by mesothelioma. It can prolong life by two to three months, possibly more, but it is prescribed under a postcode lottery. If my constituent lived in Scotland, or the north-east or north-west of England, he could be prescribed that drug, but he has just had funding for treatment with Alimta refused by the local primary care trust. May we debate this issue in the House or have an urgent statement by the Secretary of State for Health, because it is unthinkable and unethical that my constituent is dying but cannot get the treatment he needs to alleviate his pain and prolong his life. There is no point—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House notes the hon. Lady's concern.

Jack Straw: Such situations are tragic, and I commend the hon. Lady on the way in which she has raised the issue in the House. On this particular case, I understand that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—which, of course, covers England and Wales but not Scotland—has not until now approved the drug in question. I promise to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and give her a full account of my exchange with the hon. Lady in order to draw this matter to her attention, and I shall ask her to look into it and to get back in touch with the hon. Lady. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady might wish to raise the matter in the debate on the summer recess on Tuesday.

Paul Flynn: I tabled early-day motion 2591.
	 [That this House is exasperated at the four-year delay in depositing information in the Library despite an assurance on Afghan poppy eradication by a Foreign Office Minister on 14th May 2002 (volume 385, column 625) that 'details of the eradication programme, maps and a video of what has been done will be placed in the Library'; notes that, despite repeated requests by the hon. Member for Newport West and Library staff since 2nd May 2006, none of the material has been placed in the Library; further notes that 21 million compensation money appears to have been paid to the Afghan government but did not reach the farmers whom it was intended to compensate; and believes that absence of the programme, maps and videos will result in a further provocative injustice that will thwart the farmers' continuing efforts to obtain compensation.]
	I tabled that EDM to persuade the Foreign Office to publish essential information required by Afghan farmers in a current compensation claim that they have against the British Government. In May 2002, a promise was made in an oral answer in this House that that information—videos and maps—would be placed in the Library. Despite the efforts of the Library and others, that information is still not there. Those farmers have been robbed: their crops were destroyed, and although £21 million of British taxpayers' money was paid to the corrupt Karzai Government, none of it has reached the farmers.

Jack Straw: That happened under my watch as Foreign Secretary. I do not have all the details in my head, but I recall that the matter is slightly more complicated than my hon. Friend suggests. However, I will look into it with my right hon. Friend the current Foreign Secretary and ensure that either she or I get back in touch with him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next statement. I understand that there will be an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, so Members who have lost out now can perhaps try then.

Criminal Justice

John Reid: Yesterday, I set out to the House our plans for transforming the Home Office, and I said that I would return to the House with two further sets of proposals, the first of them to rebalance the criminal justice system and the second to reform the immigration and nationality directorate. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall today present to the House the results of my review of the criminal justice system—"Re-balancing the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority"—copies of which I have placed in the Library.
	As I made clear in my statement yesterday, we are not starting from year zero. My predecessors and colleagues across Government have made substantial improvements in all aspects of the criminal justice system. The overall result of that is that crime is down by 35 per cent. since 1997. Offences brought to justice have increased by 27 per cent. to 1.27 million since 2002. There are more police officers on the streets than ever before. We have given local authorities tough powers to tackle antisocial behaviour in the battle to regain community space. We have also modernised legislation in areas such as asset recovery to ensure that organised criminals are hit where it hurts—in their pockets.
	However, it is clear that there are still major issues to do with the way that the criminal justice system currently operates and—just as importantly—how it is perceived to operate. Too often, it appears that the criminal justice system is on the side of the offender—that it protects their interests and individual rights over those of the victim and the law-abiding majority. That has to change. All the proposals set out today have at their core the aim to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim and the law-abiding majority. They are set out in detail in the published plan, but I shall highlight a few of them to illustrate our direction and our intent.
	We will put law-abiding people, victims and their communities first. When asked, only 36 per cent. of people say that they are confident that the criminal justice system meets the needs of victims, compared with 80 per cent. who believe that it is fair to the accused. We will take steps to redress that imbalance. For instance, we will reform the Parole Board so that all new members have experience of victims' issues. We will ensure that in serious sexual and violent cases, there is a victim's voice and decisions must be unanimous. We also aim to make violent offenders pay towards the health care costs of their victims, as offenders currently do for road traffic injuries, and to reform the law to make it easier for victims to sue offenders who later get a windfall.
	We will act to prevent human rights—which are rightly held dear by all in this House—from being used by offenders to secure perverse outcomes that penalise victims and the law-abiding majority. In the 1996 Chahal case, it was found that the United Kingdom Government could not consider the protection of the public as a balancing factor when arguing the case for the deportation of a dangerous person. We believe that that goes against the fundamental principle in the Human Rights Act 1998 that individual and collective rights can and should be balanced against each other, and we are working with our partners in Europe to challenge that finding as vigorously as possible. We will also ensure, by legislation if necessary, that public bodies give proper priority to public protection when considering the individual rights of offenders. To support criminal justice agencies to counter misrepresentation and misuse of the Human Rights Act, we will ensure that criminal justice agencies' front-line staff get practical advice and guidance to dispel myths about the Act, and we will introduce a new online legal hotline to help them to do so. In addition, we will prevent criminals from abusing the law by restricting the ability of the plainly guilty to be released on appeal due to procedural irregularities.
	We also need a sentencing framework that gives the public confidence. We have equipped the judiciary with new powers to allow judges to detain serious offenders indefinitely for the protection of the public, and over 1,000 of them have already been used. However, we must do more to reassure the public. Therefore, we will end the automatic one-third discount given to those caught red-handed and who plead guilty, irrespective of the circumstances. We will also remove the automatic discount offered to those resentenced on appeal, and we will end the requirement that judges should automatically halve the minimum term when setting the earliest release date for those serving unlimited sentences. The Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and I will consult on options on how to achieve that.
	We must ensure that offenders comply. People's confidence in the criminal justice system is undermined when they see offenders deliberately flouting the rules. Therefore, we intend to speed up the recall to prison of those offenders who break the terms of their licence. We also intend to speed the return to court of people on bail who fail to attend by restricting the use of "warrants with bail", and to implement a presumption against bail for those who abscond or offend while on bail.
	Another key area in the plan that we have published today is the focus on gripping offenders in order to better protect the public. We have 19,000 more prison places than in 1997, and about 7,000 more serious violent offenders are behind bars. It is clear to me—and, I am sure, to many in the House—that there are people in our prisons who should not be there. They range from foreign nationals to vulnerable women to those for whom mental health treatment would be more appropriate. I do not consider that what we propose in the plan is about being tougher or softer; it is about being fairer and smarter and, above all, about better protecting the public against the most serious offenders. As we make available additional capacity, we will ensure that these new resources are focused on the serious, violent and prolific offenders who ought to be in prison—sometimes for longer than they at present spend in prison. So we will ensure that we have the places that we need to protect the public.
	We are embarking on 900 prison places by autumn 2007. We will expand prison places by an additional 8,000 to keep dangerous offenders in for longer. To make more space in prison for a tougher approach toward the most serious crimes, we will send more foreign nationals back to their own country to serve their sentences; speed up the court processes, which will mean that those not yet convicted spend less time on remand; and make better use of tagging for people on bail for less serious offences.
	We must also do more to tackle the most prolific offenders, including drug users. The report details how we are overhauling our priority and prolific offenders and drug interventions programmes, with tougher conditions, tougher enforcement and new follow-up assessments. We will also clamp down on serious offending through measures that include increasing the maximum penalty for carrying a knife to four years, setting an ambitious new target for seizing the assets of criminals, and increasing the private sector's involvement in asset seizure.
	For the vast majority of people, their world begins with what they see when they open their own front door, step into their own street and enter and move among their own communities. What is sometimes regarded as low-level offending and antisocial behaviour thus causes real harm, damage and fear. We must therefore ensure that we tackle this issue ever more efficiently, so that the public feel increasingly safer. To do that, I propose, among other things, to add to our present range of ASBOs by examining the provision of powers to close businesses that sell knives and spray cans to under-age consumers, as part of a major review of summary powers that we will publish later in the year. I also propose to introduce parental compensation orders in 10 areas from this summer to make sure that parents take responsibility for the damage that their children cause.
	Finally, we need to ensure that all this is underpinned by a simpler, swifter and fairer system to support our rebalancing aims. My right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General and I propose to work with practitioners across the criminal justice system to speed up magistrates court and Crown court processes; to expand the use of conditional cautions issued by prosecutors, without the need to go to court; to develop bulk processing arrangements for simple non-contested cases such as TV licence non-payment; and to use a variety of approaches to speed up justice, such as live television link pilots between police stations and the courts, next day justice and taking courts closer to local communities.
	Today's plan is a comprehensive package of measures that builds on what this Government have done and reflects our ongoing commitment to public safety and the rights of the victim over the offender. I commend the plan to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement and I agree with a good deal of what he has proposed. We have been calling for some time for changes to the automatic sentence reduction for a guilty plea, so we welcome that. We also oppose the automatic release of the most serious offenders halfway through their sentences, so we welcome that change, too. We of course agree with the Home Secretary's acceptance of our proposals for sentences on knife crime, and I further agree with the unanimity requirement for parole decisions, but I am amazed that members of the Parole Board do not already have experience of victims' issues.
	I welcome what sounds like a more sensible approach to human rights, although I will wait to see whether it has more effect than previous similar statements on this issue. Here, I have a question for the Home Secretary. If the Chahal challenge does not work, what will the Government then do? Again, I am amazed that front-line staff do not already get clear guidance and training in dealing with human rights issues. Taken together, these proposals are the clearest possible admission that the Conservatives were right when we suggested, against repeated Government denials, that the Human Rights Act 1998 was causing serial legal problems.

Siobhain McDonagh: So you are going to introduce a second one.

David Davis: Sadly, I cannot give way to Labour Members at the moment or I should be delighted to take that intervention.
	The first duty of a Government is to protect the public and, on too many occasions in the past nine years, this Government have failed to do that duty. The Home Secretary says that he now wants to rebalance the system and I sympathise with him, but before rebalancing the system one has to understand it. As we saw a few weeks ago in the case of Craig Sweeney, the Home Secretary's understanding is different from the Attorney-General's. That, in turn, is different from the Prime Minister's, which, in turn, is different from the Lord Chancellor's. In the end, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), was forced to give a written apology for the row that she engendered following the Home Secretary's lead. Let us hope that they all now agree on what to do about this problem.
	Contrary to the Home Secretary's claims just now, under this Government crime has got worse, not better. Overall detection rates have dropped from 29 to 26 per cent., and, for violent offences, the fall is even worse: from 69 per cent. in 1997 to 50 per cent. today. For sex offences, the detection rate has more than halved.
	Yesterday, the Home Secretary said that he wanted to reduce the bureaucratic burden on the police. I welcome that, so will he now commit to cutting the red tape, political correctness and targets coming out of his Department, and let the police get out on the streets and do the job? Annual crime figures out today show how desperately we need the police out on patrol deterring crime and catching criminals, not filling in forms in the station.
	There are now almost 500,000 more recorded crimes a year than there were eight years ago. The number of violent crimes has more than doubled and there has been a seventh year-on-year increase. The justice gap—the difference between crimes committed and crimes cleared up, which a former Home Secretary, a former Lord Chancellor and a former Attorney-General all identified as the
	"key measure of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system"—
	has grown by more than 500,000 crimes a year. So much for this Government being tough on crime.
	The Government's record on the punishment, rehabilitation and supervision of offenders is equally catastrophic. Our prisons are full to bursting, which is, after all, why we are here today to discuss this issue. Offenders have little chance of rehabilitation, and dangerous criminals are released early. Some 70 per cent. of young males are now reconvicted within two years of release—up from 56 per cent. Since 1998, more than 200 offenders on supervision have been convicted of murder. Those facts are direct results of Government policy. They have consistently failed to create enough prison places, instead choosing to release offenders early, thereby putting the lives of innocent citizens at risk.
	Now the Home Secretary says that he will build more prisons, which we of course welcome. Will those extra places be enough—over and above the ongoing growth in the prison population—to accommodate the tougher sentences and guidelines that he is proposing today? When will those sentencing measures come into force? When will the new prisons be built and when will the 8,000 extra prison places be ready for use? I understand from press coverage that it will take five years to get these extra places on stream. What will happen meanwhile? Will there be more early releases of would-be murderers? Will there be more ridiculously light sentences for rapists and paedophiles? If, as he says, he is going to release other people, can he give us more details on who they will be?
	Because the Government failed to spend money on prisons in the past, they have had to rely more and more on non-custodial sentences, and the record is truly dreadful. A massive 88 per cent. of young offenders on the Government's flagship intensive supervision and surveillance programme, supposedly the toughest alternative to prison, reoffended within 12 months.
	The Home Secretary mentioned the concerns about drug treatment orders. Roughly 70 per cent. of offenders do not complete their orders, while 80 per cent. are reconvicted within two years. What is he going to do about the failing intensive supervision and surveillance programme and about the failure of drug treatment orders? Will he seriously consider our proposals for a tough residential treatment option for drugs users—ideally instead of prison, but even after prison? Drug addiction is probably the largest component in the increase in recidivism over the past several years.
	I welcome the proposal to accelerate the processes in magistrates and other courts. From memory, I think that the time taken by magistrates courts has increased in the past five years by two working weeks, with the increase in Crown courts about double that. In both cases, the extra time is the result of the burdens, regulations and complex legislation that the Government have laid on the courts. It is time that that problem was put right.
	As the Home Secretary just said, we are not starting from year zero. The Government have had nine years in office, during which time they have been long on promises but short on delivery. The simple truth is that we have heard all of this before. I enjoyed the headline in today's edition of the right hon. Gentleman's favourite daily read,  The Sun. It cries out, "Blair Axes Soft Sentences". I enjoyed that almost as much as last year's version—"I'll Change Law to Curb Thugs"—or the one of the year before—"Blair's Plan to End the Anarchy on Our Streets". Similar headlines appeared in the several preceding years, but what has happened? The problem has got worse, not better. So here we are again, facing the same problems, but with a different Labour Home Secretary claiming to have the solutions. The right hon. Gentleman talks a good story, but so did his three predecessors.
	I am sorry that the Leader of the House has left the Chamber, as he started the Labour tradition of talking tough on crime. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) refined the art—boy, did he talk tough on crime. So did the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and the tabloids loved them. If speeches caught criminals, we would have swept the streets clean of lawlessness by now. Those three former Home Secretaries are the ones who presided over the disaster that we are witnessing today, because talk was all that they had to offer. Let us hope that, from this Home Secretary, we will get action, not words.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind words with which he welcomed my statement and for his support for some of the proposals in it. He asked whether we would consider other measures that he has looked at, and I can tell him that I am open-minded and always prepared to consider any measure that will protect the public better.
	I fear that the right hon. Gentleman probably wrote parts of his speech before he heard my statement. [Hon. Members: "No."] I said specifically that this was not a question of being tougher or softer, but of being smarter and better at protecting the public. I am interested in the objective effect of what we do, rather than in the talk, tough or otherwise, that surrounds it. He invited me to draw a comparison between his tough talk and some of the Opposition's actions, and I shall do so towards the end of my response to his remarks.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that many members of the Parole Board have experience of being a victim in their normal lives. Not all of them do, however, and we want to ensure that all members have that perspective. That is why we want make that true of every new member.
	On human rights, I said that we would look at how legislation is misrepresented or misinterpreted, and at how it is administered. From even a brief survey, it is plain to me that human rights and other legislation can lead to misunderstanding. For example, the way that the Data Protection Act 1998 was applied led to problems in the pursuit of Huntley, while misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the human rights and other legislation were at the root of the release of Rice, who went on to murder Naomi Bryant.
	We need to be prepared to make available practical facilities to counter the myths about human rights when they are misused or misrepresented in such a way that people feel that they must take a particular course of action. That is the rebalancing that I am trying to achieve.
	The Leader of the Opposition has proposed to solve the problem of the European convention on human rights not by amending or getting rid of it, but by introducing yet another Bill of Rights. That is the last thing that we need——a Bill of Rights that could contradict the ECHR. Anyway, that proposal was just another gimmick, like his views on antisocial behaviour, and did not last 24 hours, far less the tenures of three successive Home Secretaries.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) mentioned the discussions that have taken place between the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and myself on sentencing. The truth is that we have reached agreement on this matter. For instance, judges have no discretion when it comes to the mandatory 30 per cent. reduction in sentences that a guilty plea earns. That reduction applies irrespective of the circumstances in which a person is caught: even someone who is caught in flagrante will get that sentence reduction through pleading guilty. We are sometimes accused of taking discretion away from judges, but in this case we are giving it back to them.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke about prison places. He likes to have it both ways: if we do not put people in prison, we are accused of being soft, but if we do, the complaint is that our prisons are bursting. I want to put the following on the record. There are now 19,000 more people in prison, many of them serious, violent or sexual offenders, than was ever the case under the previous Conservative Government. Moreover, sentences are much longer than they used to be under that Government. Of course we must look carefully at who is in prison but, when it comes to putting people behind bars, I am afraid that the Conservatives give us only the usual tough talk and soft-centred voting.
	I thought that sentencing might come up today, so I have brought with me the Conservative voting record on the tough measures that we have introduced. The early removals scheme allows foreign national prisoners to be deported halfway through their sentences, but the Conservatives voted against it. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced tougher sentences for murder and for sexual and violent offences, and for persistent offenders, but the Conservatives voted against them. We brought in indeterminate sentences for people who have committed a serious sexual or violent offence, but the Conservatives voted against them. We introduced the new five-year minimal custodial sentence for unauthorised possession of a firearm, but the Conservatives voted against it. I could go through the whole list, but it is clear that, as ever, the Opposition talk tough but vote soft. The overall 35 per cent. reduction in crime since we took over from the Conservatives is a mark of this Government's effectiveness.
	We do not claim that our performance is perfect, and that is why we review and upgrade it continually. However, it is a damn sight better than what we inherited from the previous Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to restrict themselves to one supplementary question that elicits a brief reply? In that way, more may succeed in catching my eye.

John Denham: I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend said. If we want to be smarter, rather than simply tougher, we must recognise that our prisons are full and hold many of the wrong people, and that the prison regime offers precious little chance that prisoners can be rehabilitated and brought back into stable jobs and family life when they leave. My right hon. Friend must have secured a significant amount of new money: how will he use it to transform the prison regime, so that it places a much bigger emphasis on work and a disciplined working day, and on returning people to working life after they leave prison?

John Reid: I take my right hon. Friend's point that protection and punishment have to be accompanied by rehabilitation not only because that is good for the individual offender or prisoner, but because that contributes to the protection of society by a reduction in reoffending. That is why I am pleased that, last year, 79,000 prisoners—I think that was the figure—were involved in some form of qualification and skill enhancement. I want that to be advanced. The extension of places and the release of pressure on the prison system itself, which in its most fundamental aspects is intended to reduce the potential for overcrowding, always extends the possibility of carrying out such skills enhancement. I saw an element of that when I was in Wandsworth prison, where some of the skills that will be necessary to prepare for the Olympics in London—for example, plastering and bricklaying—are being introduced, in partnership with private sector firms in the building industry, which will employ offenders when they are released. That is the way forward.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement, although I saw from my early edition of  The Sun that others had received versions of it even before we had in the House.
	Much of the Home Secretary's statement is arguably too little. Quite a lot of it is too late. None the less, significant parts of it are welcome. I welcome, for example, the almost surprising rhetoric that he has displayed today about prisons. He has recognised, I think for the first time, that there are people in our prisons who should not be there, including vulnerable women and those who need treatment for mental health conditions. Rather than announcing new multi-million pound budgets for investing in bricks and mortar for new prisons, does he not think it would be worth investing that money in bricks and mortar for new secure mental health treatment centres, where those offenders could be more adequately housed, dealt with and rehabilitated? Equally, there is a strong case to invest far more in visible and rigorous public punishment sentences in the community. He will be aware that, in 2004, for example, over 50,000 lesser offenders served no more than an average of eight weeks in prison. Surely it would be better to have them punished and rehabilitated for the benefit of our communities, rather than them spending a few stopover weeks in prison.
	The Home Secretary should be mindful that the Home Office's own research 10 years ago or so showed that, if we wanted to reduce the overall level of crime by 1 per cent., we would need to increase prison capacity by 25 per cent. That statistic itself shows that there are limits to how much the Government can build itself out of the present prison overcrowding crisis.
	I am relieved to see that the Home Secretary and other members of the Government appear to have resiled from the early tub-thumping rhetoric against the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights, and that that approach has apparently been abandoned in favour of a more intelligent emphasis on the training and support needed for officials who have to interpret the Act. Next time there is a controversy over an issue as important as human rights, could he and his colleagues refrain from jumping on the media bandwagon and arrive earlier at the correct conclusion that he has appeared to arrive at today?
	On sentencing, we agree, of course, that we need to give judges more discretion in setting the deductions for guilty pleas and in removing the automatic halving of the period of custody before release can be considered. I note, however, that those welcome moves merely undo rules that were introduced by the Government in legislation passed only a few years ago. I also welcome in principle the idea that Parole Board decisions on serious offences should be unanimous, although I suspect that in practice—I would like some clarification on this—that happens most of the time any way.
	Can the Home Secretary explain why he has not gone further? Surely one of the greatest problems is that so many of the sentences handed down simply do not do what they say and that is one of the main reasons why public confidence in our sentencing system has been severely eroded. Life sentences, for example, do not mean life. Does he agree that public confidence would be considerably strengthened if a life sentence really meant life and applied to those cases where the courts judge that the offender should remain in custody for the remainder of his or her life?

John Reid: Again, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, despite the burden of his remarks, seems to find much with which he can agree in what I have said today. I am always gratified to see that that is the case on both Opposition Benches.
	It is true that we should be spending more on health. From memory, the health budget has gone from £33 billion to £95 billion or thereabouts, including increases in mental health spending, so a considerable amount of money is already going into that sector, but the point about making sure that there are, in substance and in perception, sufficient prison places is this. It is the sine qua non for three things. The first is to ensure that those serious offenders who should be in prison for a long period for public protection purposes and for other reasons are kept there. Secondly, if we are to discriminate, in the proper sense, in order to relieve our prisons of the burdens of those who should not be there, it is important that the public believe that we are doing that for legitimate reasons and not just because we are short of prison places. Thirdly, I do not believe that the public will accept community service as a legitimate means of serving and repaying the community unless, again, they believe that it is being done for reasons other than a shortage of prison places. In short, more prison places is the sine qua non. It is the basic requirement for protecting the public better, ensuring that those who are in prison are the people who should be in prison and ensuring that there is a legitimacy to alternatives other than prison.
	The hon. Gentleman raised human rights. I do not think that it is tub thumping to say that the public are utterly bewildered by some sentences. He himself talked about that in his last comments. The public are utterly bewildered. There are two reasons for that: first, the misrepresentation of human rights and, secondly, the judgments on the European convention on human rights by the European Court. I mentioned one of them earlier—the Chahal judgment. That is outrageously at odds with what we believe to be the correct balance of human rights as expressed in the Human Rights Act and as understood by everyone in this Chamber: the balance of the individual versus the community. That is why we oppose that. It is not a matter of tub thumping. It is a matter of saying that there are substantial problems; there are problems that we must look at not only in legislation but as regards interpretation, misrepresentation and maladministration.
	The hon. Gentleman made a quip about being on television. As far as I can make out, he has a season ticket to the television studios. I have hardly been in them in the past seven weeks, but I have not needed to be because I have had the vicarious thrill of experiencing what they are like by watching him.

David Kidney: Stafford has a prison that I visit regularly. I agree with my right hon. Friend that too many prisoners there cannot read and write, have mental illnesses or a dependency on alcohol or drugs. I am pleased to hear that he will try to find alternative outcomes for such individuals.
	My question is about those serious offenders who serve long sentences. Did I hear my right hon. Friend say that the Parole Board will seek out the views of the specific victims of that offender's behaviour before they make the decision on parole? When he makes the decisions about changing the sentences that they serve, will he bear in mind the effect on prison discipline, because prison officers already do difficult work for us, in challenging circumstances, and those changes will have an effect on the work that they do?

John Reid: Yes, I will bear that in mind. Most people looking at some of the decisions that have been taken believe that it is necessary to restore public confidence in parole decisions. I have the highest admiration for the people who work on parole boards and the commitment, professionalism and dedication that they show. We can improve confidence by doing three things.
	First, we should assure ourselves that all new members have experience of what it is like to be a victim either directly or, if they do not have personal experience of that, indirectly from assisting victims. Secondly, we should make sure that in serious cases, involving violent or sexual offences for instance, there is an expression of the victim's voice, not as a member of the parole board but to supplement the experience of the parole board. There is no reason why that cannot be done—for instance, by legal representation and, if necessary in serious cases, legal representation in consultation with the family. If there is to be an oral hearing and the offender is allowed to put his case for release, it is not obvious to me why those who have suffered as a result of the offence should not have the right to some representation, at least on their behalf if not directly.
	Thirdly, we should require unanimity. In many cases at present there is unanimity, but it should be a requirement in cases of serious and violent offences. Those three things together will restore the balance.

James Clappison: The public do indeed need to be protected from those who commit serious, violent and sexual offences, but those are not the type of offences that tend to be committed by women. The Home Secretary touched on that when he referred to vulnerable women in prison. Can he give us an assurance that he is not planning for more women to go to prison, but is planning for a sentencing system under which, wherever appropriate, women serve their sentences as close as possible to home and preferably in the company of their children?

John Reid: We want to act in a humane way. The Government have done more on domestic violence than any predecessor Government. I cannot predict the statistics. Some vulnerable women are involved in a cycle and end up in prison; if they go out, they up in prison again. We want to address that in a sensible and smart as well as efficient fashion, from the point of view of protection of the public as well as from the point of view of the individual.

Julie Morgan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals to change the sentencing guidelines. I know that my constituents whose three-year-old daughter was assaulted by Craig Sweeney will particularly welcome the fact that there will no longer be an automatic cut of a third of the sentence for a guilty plea or automatic consideration for parole after serving half the sentence. They have campaigned for that. I pay tribute to the dignified way in which they have dealt with that family tragedy.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that these changes to the sentencing guidelines should be aimed at the most dangerous offenders and those who are the greatest risk to the public?

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I made my views known about that sentence at the time. I am glad that we now have widespread agreement that the points that she mentions ought to be addressed when looking at sentencing.

Peter Bottomley: The Home Office knows that every week more than 2,000 people commit for the first time a serious criminal offence. I hope that the Home Secretary will at some stage find a way of publishing those figures and showing whether there have been changes. If we are to have fewer victims, we need to have fewer people committing serious crimes. Is there any possibility of setting an ambition of needing not more prison places but fewer, either because offenders have been treated more adequately, reformed and put back into society, or because fewer people commit crimes in the first place, which must be the ambition of both the Government and the Opposition?

John Reid: Of course we want ultimately to have fewer people committing crimes. That would have the consequence that the hon. Gentleman seeks, which is fewer people in prison. However, as long as there are people committing crimes, we will need prison places. Overall, according to the British crime survey, crime is down by 35 per cent. since 1997, which is a fairly significant reduction. It has been accompanied by an increase in the number of those in prison and the length of sentences because we believe that, while we should reduce crime, we should treat those who commit violent or serious sexual offences in a more fitting manner by giving them tougher sentences. That is the view that we have tried to take in a balanced and sensible fashion.
	The views that the hon. Gentleman expresses do not concur entirely with those expressed by his Front-Bench spokesmen.  [ Interruption. ] He is right. They do not necessarily concur with mine either, but then we are not in the same party. One would expect some sort of relationship between the members of one party. The discovery of the Conservative party's feminine side has impressed us all, but I have no plans to hug a hoodie or to hug a thug or to go any further than the plans that I have announced today.

Gordon Prentice: Next Wednesday, when everyone is going off on holiday, I shall be in Blackfriars crown court starting jury service. We changed the law three or four years ago. I have been reflecting on the experience that is to come. Has any systematic work been done to canvass the views of the thousands of people who have served on juries on how delays can be minimised and on other changes that might be made to the system?

John Reid: My hon. Friend's commitment to public service appears to know no bounds. We are all, I am sure, duly impressed with that. It is with delight and surprise that I come to the Dispatch Box without my usual riposte to my hon. Friend, which is to distance myself from his suggestions. I hope that it will not go against me in my career, but I agree with him. We ought to carry out a wider public consultation on a number of the measures that we are putting forward here today. The public want to and ought to feel that all of us in this House make decisions after listening to them.
	Some people mix up populism with listening to the views of ordinary people. Therefore consultation on many of the proposals that we have outlined, which go further than the changes to which we have committed ourselves today, ought to be a good idea. We should go into communities. I hope that other members of the criminal justice system will do that alongside us. Part of that might be to listen to former jury members and, indeed, to my hon. Friend himself.

Tony Baldry: The Chahal decision was in 1996, a decade ago. When do the Government expect to mount an effective challenge to that? What are the Government going to do if they fail to overturn the decision?

John Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman understands that, as in our own judicial system, things do not always move as quickly as we would like. We are already engaged along with European colleagues in a challenge to that decision through another case that is before the European Court of Human Rights. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman for definite when that case will end, but I think that it will be in the next 12 months. That is not a prediction but an estimate. I have found from long experience that when pursuing one course of action it is wise not to start outlining to all sorts of people, including those who sit in judgment, what we would do if we did not achieve our objective. We should pursue our objective.

Tony Lloyd: If the Home Secretary is intent, as I know he is, on making sure that society and my constituents are protected from the most violent criminals—those who kill and seriously maim—will he address the important issue of witness intimidation? There is no doubt that those who intimidate witnesses can escape justice and terrify the very victims whom my right hon. Friend wants to protect.

John Reid: That is absolutely true, which is one of the reasons why we have been exploring and introducing prevention orders against organised crime, to prevent that and a number of other offences before they happen. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is important. We are already acting on it, but we will keep it under review, and if it is necessary to tweak or rebalance the system to counter it we will do so.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Home Secretary referred in his statement to the perception of the way in which the criminal justice system works, although the unfair criticism of Judge John Griffith Williams in the Sweeney case did nothing for that perception. However, I welcome the reference to drugs intervention and hope that a lot of resources will be allocated to it; as the Home Secretary knows, two thirds of property crime is drugs-related. I commend to him the good work on drugs intervention at Altcourse prison in Liverpool.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman and join him in his last comment. On the leniency of sentences, I hope that people will separate personalities from objective outcomes. I do not regret for one minute that I criticised the unduly lenient nature of a sentence. Today, I have announced measures to make sure that such sentences are not unduly lenient in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who spoke about the case earlier, recognised that we are moving towards changing the system. There is common agreement about that, so I think I should confine my remarks to the nature of the sentencing, not the personalities involved.

Sally Keeble: A recent survey that I carried out among my constituents on policing and law and order issues showed that their priorities were for more visible policing and tougher sentences. They also wanted more protection from antisocial behaviour and street crime and a better response to it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in carrying out his welcome proposals he will meet the priorities of my constituents?

John Reid: I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend that the priorities independently identified by her constituents are precisely mine: a visible, accessible, responsive police service is what people want in their communities. When I was speaking earlier, I received criticism from Opposition Members; I merely remind them that we have more police than ever before and more police on our streets and on the beat than ever before, accompanied by community support officers and neighbourhood wardens. They are developing neighbourhood teams, and are empowered to counter antisocial behaviours as never before. That we are doing all that reflects the fact that our priorities are the same as those of my hon. Friend's constituents.

Philip Davies: I welcome the direction taken by the statement, although it represents an admission of failure because the Government have been going in the wrong direction for nine years. To rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, may I suggest that the Home Secretary reintroduce some honesty in the sentencing system to make sure that prisoners serve their sentence in full? Will he also make a commitment to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998, which in the public's mind has done so much to entrench a culture in which people believe that the system favours giving rights to criminals, prisoners and illegal immigrants at the expense of the ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizens of this country? Both those measures would meet with huge public approval.

John Reid: That does not seem to be the view of the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, who has resiled from any commitment to leave the European convention on human rights and instead has promised us the undoubted bonus of yet another Bill of Rights to add to the convention. Rather than asking me to do what his own party leader will not do, the hon. Gentleman would do better to start a little closer to home, as we are trying to do with our antisocial behaviour measures to protect people in their homes, on the streets and in their communities. The vast majority of people want effective policing and security and a reduction of fear.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that money for new prison places will not direct resources away from existing prisons, especially their education, training and mental health services and other measures designed to reduce reoffending? Can every effort be made to identify the vulnerable women and others for whom prison is not suitable and to direct them to more appropriate services?

John Reid: Yes, I will try to do that. In another place, Lady Corston is carrying out a review. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland, the Minister in the other place, takes a great interest in the matter and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), who has three prisons and a young offenders institution in her constituency, takes a particular interest, too. I shall rely on all of them to help me move in the direction she suggests.

Roger Gale: My constituent was left in a coma after an assault by a young thug who, 10 days earlier, had been released with a three-month supervision order for a similar crime. The maximum sentence for his crime was five years, but the guideline was 15 months, so because he had already served six months in custody the judge had no alternative but to let him free to go back on the streets. The sentencing guidelines are part of the problem. What does the Home Secretary propose to do about them?

John Reid: As I told the House earlier, the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I will be consulting our colleagues, including those who make up the bulk of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, on a number of issues. I hope that the outcome of those discussions will reassure the hon. Gentleman that some of the things he raised are being addressed.

Chris Bryant: I look forward to the Home Secretary's consultation with former jurors, as, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I was summoned for jury service—at the Old Bailey, last week. It was a bit of a damp squib; 120 of us were summoned and we sat in a cramped room for three hours before we were released without having to serve the rest of our two weeks. Do not we need radical changes in the way courts are run? The sittings should not simply be in the interests of the lawyers and at the convenience of the judge. There should be programmed times for cases so that trials are not as long as they are at present, and jurors and witnesses should not be treated as some kind of necessary evil.

John Reid: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. That is why our priorities included not only protecting the public from violent crime and prolific offenders, putting victims and communities first, building public confidence in sentencing and gripping offenders to protect the public, but also simple, speedy summary justice, with things such as live TV links between police stations and courts to speed processing, the expanded use of conditional cautions and the bulk processing of regulatory offences. Recently, I visited a court in the Liverpool area where there is a degree of pre-consultation between all the parties involved—from the prosecution right through to probation and policing. The driving dynamism of the judge in that court has greatly expedited efficient treatment and fairness, and diminished inconvenience and cost to everyone. I hope that example of bringing the parties together more efficiently, which has already spread to Manchester, will spread throughout the country.

Nigel Dodds: In welcoming much of what the Home Secretary has announced today, I urge him to have an early discussion with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that people in my area, too, can benefit from a greater sense of fairness in the sentencing regime and so that they can have a sense that the criminal justice system is both fair to, and meeting the needs of, victims. He will know from his previous experience that we already lag behind in many areas, such as ASBOs, unlimited sentencing, the life sentence tariffs and so on. He is the man who can have a word with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Will he do it quickly and ensure that we get action on these areas?

John Reid: I am always willing to have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—formally and informally—but I would much rather that the rapid progress in this area was made by the people of Northern Ireland themselves, and together, wherever that is possible.

Nigel Dodds: It is not a devolved matter.

John Reid: If this is an area that is not devolved to the Assembly, of course I will share my views with the Secretary of State. He will be aware of them, because these details are shared with my Cabinet colleagues before I share them with the House.

Robert Flello: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that, for many people, the world begins outside their front door. At the beginning of the week, I was on Goldenhill road in my constituency, with the elected mayor, talking to local residents about crime and antisocial behaviour from a park behind their houses. My right hon. Friend has said that he is going to propose a number of things to tackle groups of young thugs—for want of a better word—driving their motorbikes up and down the park. Can he give any further indication of what other measures may be in the pipeline specifically relating to motorbikes and their misuse, and of how the existing fantastic improvements to the law can be toughened up even further?

John Reid: Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that we intend to bring forward and implement measures that are intended to be directed at that specific area. They are to back up and complement the powers that we have already introduced in relation to local policing and local people. Those powers enable the quick closure of crack houses, which are a cancer on many estates. There are also dispersal orders for antisocial elements. I mentioned a new parental compensation order being brought in.
	The question is important. I remember when we started to deal in the House with antisocial behaviour issues. On one occasion, we were laughed out by Opposition Members, who regarded it as somehow demeaning that we were dealing with burnt-out cars, graffiti, muggings and needles in the street. We were mocked as being interested in chewing gum on the pavements. Not for the first time, Opposition Members were completely and utterly out of touch with the feelings of the vast majority of people in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying hard to accommodate everyone. May I please ask for one supplementary question and brief replies?

Andrew Turner: May I tell the Home Secretary that there is a site designated on the Isle of Wight for a fourth prison? He owns it, it has planning permission, and my constituents would welcome the investment and jobs. When are the new sentencing guidelines going to come into effect and when will the new prison places be available?

John Reid: The answer to the last two questions—rather than one question, there were three—is: as soon as possible; and the answer to the first question is: all offers considered.

Julian Lewis: According to the Home Secretary's statement, the Government will end the requirement that judges should automatically halve the minimum term when setting the earliest release date for those serving unlimited sentences. Am I right in thinking that the vast majority of sentences are not unlimited sentences, and does that mean that the majority of sentences, say for 18 years, 14 years, 12 years, will still—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Home Secretary understands the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

John Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of serious offences now are given indeterminate sentences—in other words, unlimited sentences.

Charles Walker: I can reassure the Home Secretary that, despite being in touch with my feminine side, I will not be hugging a hoodie, in case he stabs me in the stomach. On a serious point, how can we best use sentencing to persuade young people that the simple act of carrying a knife is a serious crime in itself?

John Reid: We do that by making sure that the maximum sentence for carrying a knife—whether it is classified as an offensive weapon or an object with a point, which are the two classifications in legislation—is long enough to denote the seriousness of that act. That is why I have announced today, as part of my measures, that I intend to extend the maximum sentence for carrying an object with a point or a blade to four years.

Peter Bone: I welcome the Home Secretary's comments about low-level offending and the fact that more police officers should be on the beat. However, in Wellingborough, yob culture is growing. The chief constable has interpreted Government policy by getting rid of the basic command unit in my area, removing my chief superintendent to outside the constituency and moving police officers outside the constituency. It would appear that the chief constable has misunderstood Government policy. Will the Home Secretary have a word with him to reverse those decisions?

John Reid: Although I am always willing to try to help hon. Members, especially on the Opposition Benches, I will observe the proprieties of allowing chief constables to make their own decisions on those matters—unless the issue is of such strategic and national importance that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I would legitimately be entitled to intervene.
	I am glad that we agree on one thing. Where there are young thugs—this does not apply to the vast majority of young people, who are as unenamoured of yobs and thugs as the rest of population—hugs do not always provide a way of tackling them. I am glad that he is with our side of the House on that. I thought for a moment that he was going to add shouting "Yo!" to a yob, or something of that nature, to the idea of hugging a hoodie. I am glad that he refrained from doing so.

BILL PRESENTED

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Secretary John Reid, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Hutton, Hazel Blears and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, presented a Bill to create a new offence that, in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, is to be called corporate manslaughter and, in Scotland, is to be called corporate homicide; and to make provision in connection with that offence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 24 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 220].

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
	Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation that he believes is concerned in terrorism by adding the organisation to schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act, which lists proscribed organisations. An organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
	That power was extended by section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to include organisations that glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism. Glorification includes any form of praise or celebration of acts of terrorism. We are therefore now able to take action against those who make statements that most right-minded people find abhorrent and who create a climate that supports and fuels terrorism.

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend explain why we have not got on today's list the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose activities are proscribed in Germany and many other countries and are of deep concern to many people in this country?

Tony McNulty: I take my hon. Friend's point. This is not a definitive list in terms of proscription. There are any number of other organisations, among which I would include Hizb ut-Tahrir, that we keep under constant review and are seriously concerned about. I do not come here with "This year's list of proscribed organisations". This is an ongoing process and we keep all those organisations under review.

David Marshall: The order adds names to the list. Will the Minister explain what an organisation, once on the list, can do to be removed from it, and will he reconsider whether the People's Mujahedin of Iran should be removed from the list now?

Tony McNulty: Again, I take my hon. Friend's point. I shall not reconsider organisations that are already on the list, but if he will bear with me I shall come on to precisely the point of how an organisation can try to get itself removed from the list.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give the House an indication of how many other organisations are under intensive review, with the possibility of being banned? Is there a danger that the Minister will need to ban other organisations over the long parliamentary recess?

Tony McNulty: I do not think that there is any intention of introducing proscription orders over the recess. In the confines of the assorted Terrorism Acts, an order subject to the affirmative procedure has to come before the House, so there will not be any proscription over the recess, unless the second element of the legislation is used. That element allows orders subject to the negative procedure to be laid regarding organisations that are clearly successor groups to an organisation that has previously been proscribed. I can thus give the right hon. Gentleman a broad assurance.
	The House will know that the order before us lists four organisations that we believe are concerned in terrorism: al-Ghurabaa, the Saved Sect, the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan, which, if I may, I will call TAK from now on. Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect are being proscribed under the new glorification provisions, and this is the first time that those powers have been used. The Baluchistan Liberation Army and TAK are directly involved in acts of terrorism.
	When deciding whether to make an order proscribing a group, several additional factors are taken into account. They were published in 2001. The factors are the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom, the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas, the organisation's presence in the United Kingdom, and the need to support other members of the international community in their fight against terrorism.
	The proscription of an organisation is a very serious matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) suggested. It means that the organisation is outlawed in the UK and that it is illegal for it to operate here. The Terrorism Act makes it a criminal offence to belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to arrange a meeting that will support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or that will be addressed by someone who belongs to such an organisation. Finally, a person commits an offence if he or she wears clothing, or carries or displays articles, that provide a reasonable suspicion that he or she is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
	I now come on to my hon. Friend's point. It is important to note that any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone who is affected by a proscription, can appeal directly to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If that is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. There is thus a twofold process whereby organisations on the list can be de-proscribed.
	Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary takes the decision to propose a group for proscription only after a thorough review of all relevant material. That includes open-source and intelligence material, as well as advice that reflects consultations across Government and with law enforcement agencies.
	I believe that proscribing the four groups in the order will send a clear message that the United Kingdom continues to take its role in fighting terrorism seriously. We all know that the nature of terrorism has changed. The structures used are more fluid and international, and there are organisations that recruit and radicalise, as well as those that actually commit terrible acts of violence against innocent civilians. Each day we see more and more examples of the enormous challenge that we face.

Julian Lewis: Over the period in which the legislation has been in force, is there evidence that any of the groups that were proscribed in the past reconstituted themselves ostensibly as new groups and thus had to be proscribed again?

Tony McNulty: There is, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comment. He will know that an order subject to the negative procedure is before the House today. The PKK is a proscribed Kurdistan group. We believe that we have sufficient information that suggests that the two groups that are the subject of that order—KADEK and Kongra Gele Kurdistan—are simply successor groups to the PKK, which is why they can be proscribed simply by such an order under section 22 of the Terrorism Act 2006, unless the order is prayed against during the 21 days, or whatever it is, for which it is laid. We rightly included that provision in the Act because we had evidence of such activity.
	It is against the broad background that I outlined that we must consider all steps that we can take to protect our citizens from terrorism. That involves difficult decisions and judgments, but the overriding responsibility must be to protect the public. Part of that is about making it harder for organisations that are involved in terrorism—both directly and indirectly—to operate, and that is simply what proscription does.
	Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect use the internet as their main medium. The two organisations are closely connected and both are successor organisations to al-Muhajiroun. They use the internet to attack the values of our society and praise those who want to use violence for ideological aims. They spread a message that is aimed at the young and vulnerable, which indirectly encourages them to emulate previous terrorist acts.

David Winnick: I would have thought that most people, including those in the Muslim community, would say, "It's about time." However, what about the people behind these organisations: the racists and hate-mongers who are not UK citizens? Is there not a strong case for considering those people's status in the United Kingdom and inevitably asking whether their presence in this country is really desirable?

Tony McNulty: There certainly is; I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that during the passage of the Bill that became the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, not least because of the events of last summer, we revisited precisely the issue to which he refers on a cross-party basis. Many of the powers that we have to get rid of the undesirables to whom he refers—those who are not UK citizens, but operate in this country—are at their strongest because of the provisions that were added to that Act, with broad agreement in the main part.

Mike Hancock: Can the Minister give us details of any charges that have been brought against individuals who have been involved with organisations since they have been proscribed? Have any of those charges led to successful convictions?

Tony McNulty: I cannot offhand, not least because the organisations that have been proscribed under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 have not been as such for terribly long. If I can get any substantive information, I suspect that it will be about charges that have been made because the process will be unfolding as we speak. That relates in part back to the earlier statement, given the length of time that it takes such things to go through the courts. If I am able to give the information to the hon. Gentleman and the House, I will of course be happy to do so.

Nigel Dodds: May I ask about the removal of organisations from the proscribed list? Apart from the point that was made about organisations that become defunct, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have given any consideration to the removal of other organisations, including domestically based ones in Northern Ireland, on the grounds that they might have changed in character? We are being told that organisations in Northern Ireland are fit for government, yet they remain proscribed as illegal organisations under the legislation.

Tony McNulty: The narrow confines of the order relate only to the organisations that are being proscribed under the powers in the Terrorism Acts, rather than the broader context of domestically based organisations in Northern Ireland and other such concerns. The order relates simply to the proscription of organisations—although I have mentioned de-proscription—and no more.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend with a previous intervention. In fact, Anjem Choudry, one of the leading lights of one of the organisations that are to be banned, was recently convicted of organising a demonstration.

Tony McNulty: I will leave it to my hon. Friend to give the oxygen of publicity to those people and their previous, imminent or subsequent convictions. I choose not to mention names, which is why I am rather irate with my hon. Friend.
	A spokesman for al-Ghurabaa explicitly refused to condemn the 7 July bombings:
	"What I would say about those who do suicide operations or martyrdom operations is they're completely praiseworthy. I have no allegiance to the Queen whatsoever or to British society; in fact if I see mujahideen attack the UK I am always standing with the Muslims, never against the Muslims."

Rudi Vis: I recall that in 2001 we had one vote on the proscription of 21 organisations. If any of those organisations were to be de-proscribed in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) suggested, would there have to be a review of all 21 proscribed organisations, because there was just one vote?

Tony McNulty: No, there would not. No matter how many organisations are on the order, they are treated under law as separate and distinct organisations, so the de-proscription would apply simply to the one organisation, rather than to the whole list.
	As I was saying, there is material on the al-Ghurabaa website that says
	'kill those who insult Mohammed'
	and
	"we do believe in Jihad, we do believe in violence, we do believe in terrorizing the enemy of Allah".
	It talks about Osama bin Laden being a lion and says that his opponents are
	"treading a downhill path of destruction and humiliation".
	It speaks of the USA being
	"forced to kneel down towards him".
	The Saved Sect churns out similar propaganda. Let us be clear: those are examples not of freedom of speech, but of the abuse of those freedoms. They are insidious attacks on the broad values that the overwhelming majority of communities in this country hold dear.
	The case of the Baluchistan Liberation Army and TAK is different, as those organisations are directly concerned with terrorism, and have claimed responsibility for some dreadful atrocities. For example, the Baluchistan Liberation Army has claimed responsibility for attacks going back to at least 2004, including the murder of Chinese engineers in February 2006 and nine bombings of railway stations in 2005. TAK has also claimed responsibility for attacks in Turkey since 2004, including a bomb attack on an internet café in Istanbul. Although those organisations are not based in the United Kingdom, they pose a threat to our citizens, as was demonstrated by the tragic death of British citizens in a bomb attack by TAK in the Turkish resort of Kusadasi in 2005.

Michael Weir: I have no dispute with the Minister about the proscription of TAK, but he has announced the proscription of three Kurdish organisations. There is a long history in Kurdistan, particularly its Turkish part, of the oppression of Kurdish people. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will keep the situation under review, so that we do not end up proscribing organisations that are democratic? There can be no doubt about the nature of TAK, but many Kurdish organisations are accused of terrorism by the Turkish Government, and their members are imprisoned, when in fact they are democratic organisations fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people.

Tony McNulty: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but in the context of the order, there is clear evidence against TAK, and there is already substantive evidence against the PKK. The other two organisations that we propose to proscribe in an order under the negative procedure are simply successors to the PKK. If a body is not a terrorist organisation in terms, as defined in various Acts and in the judgment and review of the Government, it will not appear on a list for proscription.

Evan Harris: Paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum explains that under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Minister could proscribe an organisation that, among other things,
	"promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned with terrorism."
	It explains that section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006 adds the glorification of terrorism to the reasons for proscription. I do not necessarily disagree with the Minister's proposal, but is the section 21 power required to proscribe the Saved Sect and al-Ghurabaa, or does the Minister think that they could be proscribed under the powers in the 2000 Act, without need for that power?

Tony McNulty: I assume that the hon. Gentleman was here at the start of my speech. I said very clearly that the organisations are being proscribed under the glorification offence in section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with those organisations that glorify
	"the commission or preparation...of acts of terrorism".
	Glorification includes
	"any form of praise or celebration"
	of acts of terrorism. This is the first time that the offence has been used, and I made that clear at the start of my deliberations.

Evan Harris: When the Minister cited that provision he did not read from the website of al-Ghurabaa, so it was not clear to those of us who had not seen that website what language fell specifically under the category of "glorification", rather than under "promotes and encourages". I am not seeking to argue with him; I am just seeking to establish whether, in his view, what he read out from that website did not promote or encourage terrorism, but glorified it.

Tony McNulty: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say, but I shall not, with the indulgence of the House or otherwise, read the whole speech again. I would quite like to—I could do it a bit differently this time—but I do not think that I will. The offence is under section 21, and that is the substance of the issue. Given the material that is available, as I have said, it is quite right that we should proscribe the organisations listed in the order, and I commend the order to the House.

Patrick Mercer: I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving us the facility to discuss the order before we came to the House today.
	The measure is apposite, bearing in mind that this Thursday exactly a year ago we were in the middle of another wave of terrorist attacks that, had they been successful, would, I suspect, have focused our minds much more closely even than the attacks of 7 July. On the next day—22 July—those attacks were followed by a series of tragic events that are close to the Government's thoughts at the moment. We would do well to remember that many of the organisations that we are talking about today were heavily involved in the events of last year.
	May I begin by saying that the Opposition are delighted with the four names on the order to which the Minister has referred? We certainly support the Government's proscription of those organisations, but I should be grateful if the Minister would kindly answer one or two questions. I shall first deal with the first two organisations that have been proscribed today. Both al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect—also known as the Saviour Sect—have been proscribed, but they are remnants of al-Muhajiroun. What are the Government's views about other remnants of that organisation, such as the followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah Wal-Jammaa'ah, the Muballigh, the Islamic Thinkers Society and the Society of Muslim Lawyers, which is not the same as the Association of Muslim Lawyers?
	Omar Bakri Muhammad, who established al-Muhajiroun, said:
	"Al-Muhajiroun has many organs which are active within society under its leadership. These organs specialize in different fields, such as: the Society of Muslim Lawyers, the Society of Converts to Islam, the Society of Muslim Parents, the London School of Shari'ah, the Shari'ah Court of the UK, the Society of Muslim Students, the Islamic World League, the Muslim Cultural Society and the Party of the Future."
	How will the Government cope with that? As soon as organisations are banned, they change their name. The same happened with the IRA—first, there was the Official IRA, then the provisionals, then a series of other splinter organisations. How will we cope with that? Can the Minister help me on that point? As soon as one organisation is banned, it springs up under another name. That is not a criticism; I am merely asking for information about how that can be controlled.

John Redwood: How many organisations that are as bad as the ones that we are proscribing today should be proscribed?

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The answer is that there are any number. As soon as I name one of those organisations, it will rename itself. As soon as it is proscribed, it will spring up under another guise. As I said, that is not a criticism of the Government; it is a merely question about how they intend to deal with it.
	Hezbollah is much in the news at present. Will the Government explain why the external security organisation of Hezbollah is proscribed, whereas Hezbollah's political arm and its guerrilla forces in south Lebanon are not proscribed? I shall quote from the Minister for the Middle East, although his words make the situation no clearer. He stated in March 2006:
	"We are not aware of any involvement by Hizballah in terrorist activity in southern Lebanon. However, we remain very concerned by Hizballah's support for terrorist activity within the Occupied Territories."—[ Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 422W.]
	Can the Minister please explain why we deal with one half of the organisation in one way, and the other half in another way?
	Why is Abu Hamza's old group, the Supporters of Sharia, not proscribed? What is the Government's view on them? From their chat rooms, it is clear that they are a thinly disguised front for al-Qaeda in the United Kingdom. What are the Government's views on Tablighi Jama'at? That organisation has plans to build a £100 million mosque in east London that will apparently accommodate 10,000 worshippers. French intelligence is deeply worried by that organisation, claiming that 80 per cent. of Islamist fundamentalists in France come from TJ and calling it the "antechamber of fundamentalism". How will we cope with that? Do the Government propose to allow the group's recruiting methods to continue? Are we to give succour to it? Again, I simply require information from the Government. What about the Student Islamic Movement of India inside the United Kingdom? We have already touched on that. What are the Government's views on the comments of Lord Carlile about the de-proscription of Mujaheddin-e-Khalq?
	I return to the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made about Hizb ut-Tahrir, or HUT for short. A few days ago the Home Secretary told us how pleased and delighted he was with the way that Project CONTEST was developing. That is the Government's anti-terrorist strategy, which revolves around four streams of thought—four streams of action. Will the Government explain how HUT fits into both the "protect" and the "prepare" streams of thought of project CONTEST? I remind the House that the Prime Minister's delivery unit said of Project CONTEST that activity in the project was not connected or coherent, it asked who was in charge, and it said that Project CONTEST measures meetings and reports, not real world impact. The Home Secretary denied all that.
	HUT is banned from many Arab countries, the former Soviet Union and Germany, yet London appears to be its headquarters. Its UK branch was founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad, who founded al-Muhajiroun, and it talks endlessly about anti-Muslim integration. On 5 August 2005, the Prime Minister said that HUT would be proscribed. Why has it not been? If we have Project CONTEST, a strategy for counter-terrorism, which the Home Secretary tells us is in good shape—although the Prime Minister's delivery unit says it is not fit for purpose—can the Minister please explain to me why the Prime Minister's words have not been honoured?

David Drew: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about HUT, particularly about its statements, which it made openly, that Muslims should be tried according to sharia in this country. We have the rule of law in the United Kingdom, which everyone must obey. The attitude of HUT may not be a reason for proscribing it, but it is certainly a reason for strong argument with the group. If it does not obey the rule of law in the UK, it is outwith a democratic society. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I entirely agree. I cannot understand why an organisation that espouses the views to which the hon. Gentleman has just drawn attention is not proscribed. More to the point, I agree with what the Prime Minister said on 5 August 2005. Why has HUT not been proscribed? If we are preventing terror, protecting our population, preparing for attacks and pursuing terrorists under Project CONTEST, why has that not been done?

Mike Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the points that he is making are the issues that cause so much confusion and concern within the Muslim population in this country about the way in which some organisations are treated, whereas others are ignored for other reasons, although they know not why?

Patrick Mercer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We had such discussions when we were serving together on the Defence Committee. There is nothing worse than inconsistency in a campaign such as the present one. Inconsistency will always be misinterpreted, perverted and turned against us. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Rudi Vis: Organisations are sometimes not proscribed because it is easier for the police to keep an eye on them that way than otherwise.

Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. Many of the questions that I have asked today may well be covered by the Minister in an explanation making that precise point. Certainly, I am criticising, but many of the other points that I am making are points of information that the whole House, as evidenced by the interventions, would be interested to know.
	Lastly, if we proscribe organisations, it is all very well talking and generating hot air, but what is done about asset seizure? There must be delivery, not just talk. There is no point in Government anti-terrorism strategies that are torn apart by the Government's own audit organisations. I welcome what the Government have done today. I ask the Minister for some thoughtful—as I know they will be—and trenchant replies to the questions that the Opposition have asked.

Andrew Dismore: I, too, welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety. As he knows, I have been pursuing the fundamentalist extremists since 1998. That was when I first asked questions about Bakri Muhammad and al-Muhajiroun in the House. We should remember that Bakri Muhammad set up al-Muhajiroun because he has fallen out with the Muslim Brotherhood, which he came to the United Kingdom to set up—an extreme organisation banned in many countries around the world.
	I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the problems of the splinter groups that are continually set up. It is a little like the Trotskyists in the 1970s. Whenever one looked at them, they were a different organisation. The present case is rather more sinister and rather more dangerous than the Trotskyists ever were. They may have purported to undermine society as we knew it, but they never got very far.

Julian Lewis: I cannot resist a brief trip down memory lane. Although it is true that Trotskyists and other far left groups and, indeed, pro-Soviet groups used to rename themselves, it was nevertheless also true that when the hon. Gentleman's party fatally abolished the proscribed list, that had a huge effect on reviving the overt way in which those groups were able to function. That is why, despite the danger of reinvention, proscription is worth while.

Andrew Dismore: We are getting a little off the point. The serious issue is how we keep up with the continual name changes of organisations that are effectively the same organisations as those that were proscribed. If they have the same website, address or telephone number, that is relatively easy to follow. If the same people are involved, it becomes more difficult because many of them have aliases and noms de guerre. When we look them up on the internet, we find a series of different names for the same people. Moreover, they are not organisations like political parties with membership lists, membership cards and so forth, but loose associations, which makes it that much harder.
	The explanatory memorandum, which gives the reasons why Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect should be proscribed, uses somewhat measured and temperate language that understates the nature of the organisations with which we are dealing. One of Al-Ghurabaa's key activists, Anjem Choudary, was the prime mover behind the demonstration outside the Danish embassy and was recently convicted of not giving proper notice to the police. I regret to say that he received a mere slap on the wrist, which no doubt encourages rather than discourages people in those circumstances. Several trials for more serious offences are still outstanding in relation to that demonstration. The rabid anti-Semitism of those groups is notorious. One need only look at some of the statements made on the demonstration, such as, "Butcher those who mock Islam", or "Kill those who insult Islam", and the people dressed as suicide bombers, to apprehend the nature of Al-Ghurabaa.
	The Saved Sect is probably the most direct line back to al-Muhajiroun. It was formerly known as the Saviour Sect, but changed its name. That is why I mentioned name changes. Sometimes the new name is dissimilar, but it is often very similar. People associated with the Saved Sect included Mizanur Rahman, who demanded the beheading of those who insult Islam at the Danish embassy demonstration, and Islam Uddin, who called the Jewish people
	"the most disgusting and greedy people on earth".
	Many others have made similar statements. I would like particularly to highlight Abu Yahya. When I first started this campaign back in 1998, I remember him speaking on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, proclaiming the jihadist message and boasting of the terrorist training that he had received in Afghanistan.
	My key concern is the fact that so many organisations, not only those listed by the hon. Member for Newark, have not been brought within the realms of proscription. I particularly want to raise the question of Hezbollah. The military wing of Hezbollah is proscribed, but the political wing is not. Hezbollah itself does not make any distinction between those two entities and operates as one single organisation.

Rudi Vis: Two members of Hezbollah are in the Government. It is a little difficult to proscribe part of the Government of that country.

Andrew Dismore: I presume that my hon. Friend means Lebanon, which I have not mentioned, as I do not think that we have any members of Hezbollah in the UK Government. The fact remains that we are talking about the proscription of organisations in the UK. I am extremely concerned that Hezbollah has not been banned in its so-called political form as it has in the United States, Canada, Australia and Holland.
	Similarly, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have not been banned either, although they appear on the US list of foreign terrorist organisations. The anti-Semitic, anti-British way of life organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is clearly a matter of great concern to many Members. The arguments in favour of banning Hizb ut-Tahrir have already been advanced at great length. I agree. I cannot understand why an organisation that is banned in so many countries around the world, and which proclaims a message of anti-Semitism and of trying to destroy our society, should not also be proscribed.
	I very much welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister—my only concern is that it does not go far enough. There are still loopholes that people who undermine our society and rule of law are more than willing to exploit in order to achieve that objective. We need ever greater tightening of these measures and further organisations put within the parameters of the proscription list.

David Heath: I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the orders and for his offer of consultation prior to the debate, which I found extremely helpful.
	I take the basic message from the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), which is that attacking these organisations in an organised way is like battling a hydra, because there is no way of satisfactorily keeping pace with the splinter organisations that will inevitably develop. It may seem a rather thankless task.
	The first order concerns a matter of process. When we debated the last set of orders, of which there were a great number, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said that each organisation should be given separate consideration. One of the procedural difficulties that the House sometimes has, if not today, is that we do not have the opportunity to consider organisations separately because we can only accept or reject the entire list that is put before us.

Rudi Vis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that very few Members had any idea of the basic information about more than three or four organisations out of the 21, yet we had only one vote?

David Heath: I made that point at the time, and it does concern me. In debating such matters, we have to rely a great deal on trust, which is often well placed in Ministers and the advice that they receive from the security services. Nevertheless, we have to decide as a House whether to agree to the orders, and we should do so on the basis of the maximum information available.
	I want to put one minor point to the Minister. The separate negative order that has been laid could have been included with the affirmative order to give the entire House the opportunity of agreeing to it. That would have meant that some of the exchanges in which the Minister has engaged with hon. Members would have been in order rather than almost out of order, as they must have been.
	When we debate such matters, we often lack the evidence that the Minister has in his possession. That is inevitable. The House cannot know about all the advice that has been received because some of it will be from our security services and police and from foreign sources, and it would not be appropriate to divulge all that information in the public domain. However, we are entitled to know about the levels of activity of such organisations in the United Kingdom so that we can make a judgment about the danger to British citizens and British interests elsewhere.
	We should be told whether any of the orders have been placed at the request of another Government. I fear that the Government are in danger of putting themselves in a difficult diplomatic position whereby they accede to requests for proscription from some countries but not from others. It becomes ever more difficult not to accede to such a request, even if there is a suspicion that it is less well founded, and that puts diplomatic pressure on the Government. It should be made clear to the House where there has been a request from an overseas Government and the extent to which that has been supported by British intelligence-gathering organisations in the field that can corroborate the view of that Government.

Michael Weir: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly in relation to Kurdish organisations. There has been oppression of Kurdish people by Turkey, Syria and Iraq over many years, and the Governments of those countries perhaps have a very different view of the operations of organisations that we would consider democratic but they may not.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect—that we must not proscribe organisations simply because another country with which we may be friendly believes that they are undemocratic. However, I have to say that there are clear cases where Kurdish organisations are engaged in terrorist acts, and those are the ones that have been put before the House. There may be a case for reconsideration at some stage in the future, but where there is evidence, then let us accept it.
	Two organisations listed today are clearly, from the evidence presented to the House, involved in terrorist activity. They are the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan. They pose fewer difficulties than the two that the Minister has included purely on the basis of section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the clause that were used during the Bill's passage. There were different views—not about the intent to stop the vile and evil recruitment of people to carry out terrorist acts in this country but about whether glorification was the right term and whether other, more appropriate legal mechanisms existed. Let us not enter into that debate today.
	There is a danger of moving away from our commitment in this country to free speech purely because people say things with which we profoundly disagree. Proscription is not the way in which to argue against, for example, an organisation that wants the Islamic caliphate or sharia law. An organisation would have to go much further—however violently one might disagree with its views—for it to be proscribed.
	A significant point arises from the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The order does not mention section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006 as a ground for proscription. The explanatory notes and the Minister's comments do. Having heard his remarks and the quotes that he read out from the websites of al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, I do not believe that proscription should be based purely on section 21. It may be unwise in legal terms to base the arguments on that section when they extend wider, because they are then open to challenge in court. From what I heard, the words used constituted prima facie evidence of the crime of incitement. I seriously ask Home Office Ministers why so few prosecutions for incitement have taken place when the comments that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) cited are made openly. They at least suggest an incitement crime. Why are so few prosecutions brought? Prosecuting for incitement could be more effective than the heavy-handed approach of proscription.

Evan Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Arguably, section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006 could also be used. He is not alone in expressing concern about proscription. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also argued in paragraph 63 of its third report that extending the ground for proscription to cover organisations that glorify acts of terrorism was unlikely to be compatible with the right to freedom of expression in article 10 and the right to freedom of association in article 11 of the European convention on human rights. There is a concern that those powers may, at some point, be struck down and we therefore need to ensure that we use them in the right way.

David Heath: Under the terms of the order, which does not specify a section, I doubt whether a court would put such a narrow construction on the Minister's words, but we are right to express concern.
	Is the Minister confident that the internet sites, which seem to be his principal concern, will be closed down as a consequence of proscription or will they simply move to an overseas base and continue as before? If proscription does not achieve the primary objective of closing down those sites, it has failed as a mechanism.
	It is a matter of natural justice that proscribed organisations should be regularly reviewed to ascertain whether the proscription remains necessary and in order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) mentioned the People's Mujaheddin of Iran. There have been concerns about whether it should be proscribed. I make no comment on that apart from saying that I hope that it is subject to review. I especially hope that new assessments are made at the time of negative resolution orders for successor organisations. Rather than simply assessing whether an organisation is a successor body, we should assess whether it has the same principles and adherents as the previous organisation.

Tony McNulty: Not least for the benefit of others who may go down that route, let me say that the PMOI currently has an application for de-proscription before the Home Secretary. However much people wax lyrical about it, I shall not comment on it. It would not be appropriate to do that. If people want answers from me about that specific organisation, they will not get any because the de-proscription request is before the Home Secretary.

David Heath: The Minister is right to take that view. I am not acting as an advocate for the organisation, I am simply asking for the matter to be considered.
	Hizb ut-Tahrir clearly holds views that many of us find abhorrent. I am especially worried about the anti-Semitism that the organisation expounds, which should be subject to legal sanction. However, whether it is a matter for proscription is a different question. The organisation is avowedly against the violent expression of its views. I am not in possession of intelligence material that would tell me whether that is true, but I know that it states that it is against violent and terrorist activities. We must be careful not to assume, simply because we do not like—and may abhor—an organisation, that we, as a state, should stop it being able to undertake its functions in this country. We should always, when possible, use the normal criminal law to ensure that people are charged with proper offences in court and that, if they are found guilty, they pay the appropriate penalty.

Andrew MacKinlay: I refer to the explanatory memorandums that were before the House in 2001. Those documents were fuller and amplified the Government's case—— especially on the organisations to be proscribed and their activities in the United Kingdom——more than the current explanatory memorandum, which contains nothing to the same effect. I regret that. I do not want to belabour the point, as we fully realise that there are constraints on the Home Secretary. However, the memorandum could have been fuller and in line with what has been before the House previously. The Home Secretary asks hon. Members to trust his judgment, and I do, but that underlines the point that the Government need to review regularly the organisations that they have proscribed.
	The Minister said in his opening remarks, and reminded us a few moments ago, that people can apply to be de-proscribed, but he himself cannot escape his duty to keep proscribed organisations under constant review. He did not refer to that and I regret it. If I could have his attention for a moment, it would make my journey to Westminster today worth while. I listened carefully to his comments, all of which were valid, but the Home Secretary has a duty to keep matters under review, especially given that the organisation to which the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred—the PMOI, also known as Mujaheddin-e-Khalq—was proscribed in 2001. The British Government have acknowledged that the organisation has not been involved in any military or terrorist activity since then. In 2001, they acknowledged that it was not involved in any such activities in the United Kingdom. There must be carrot and stick. If an organisation fulfils the criterion of being a lawful organisation in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government should make some response.
	The Minister was right to say that he could not comment on the PMOI's application, which is before the Home Secretary, because the Home Secretary and the Minister will act in a quasi-judicial way. However, that does not stop me making points to underline the importance of considering such matters. As a backdrop, the Prime Minister referred to the Iranian Government this week from the Dispatch Box as the exporters of terrorism. Their opponents are trying to stand up to them, just as General de Gaulle kept the flame flickering while in exile.
	The Minister for the Middle East is chuntering under his breath, but I hope that he will do me the courtesy of listening to me for one more minute. Even if he thinks that Andrew Mackinlay is talking rubbish, the case that I am advancing has been articulated much better by people such as Lord Archer of Sandwell, a former Labour Solicitor-General; David Waddington, a former Conservative Home Secretary; Lord Fraser, a former Conservative Lord Advocate; and Lord Carlile of Berriew, the person who has been charged by the Government with making an objective assessment of these proscriptions. In Lord Carlile's most recent report, he flagged up the fact that the Government should reflect again on the PMOI, or the MeK, as it is also known.
	I wish that the Ministers would recognise that some of us do trust them, but that we expect a quid pro quo. We, the custodians of liberties, need to be satisfied that they are reviewing past decisions that were dictated by a request from the Iranian Government to the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, which was then conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to proscribe the PMOI. Some of us think that that decision was flawed, and we want reassurance that there will now be some objectivity, and that the organisation will not continue to be proscribed merely to appease the rotten regime in Tehran.

Michael Gove: I congratulate the Minister and the Government on proscribing al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect. Those organisations are the successors to al-Muhajiroun, whose founder, Omar Bakri Mohammad, was involved in the commission and preparation of terrorist acts and recruitment for jihad. He trained young men, whom he sent to fight in Chechnya, Afghanistan and Jordan. He was also directly responsible for the recruitment and training of two young Britons, Asif Mohammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, whom he sent to their deaths in a suicide mission in Israel. His ideology is foul, and his organisation deserves to be proscribed. Its successor organisations also deserve to be proscribed, and I congratulate the Government on doing so.
	I regret, however, that Hizb ut-Tahrir is not on the list of organisations being proscribed today. Last year, the Prime Minister outlined the case for the proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and, as so often happens when the Prime Minister talks about Islamist terrorism, I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with him. Why have the Government not proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir? Did the Foreign Office and the Home Office fall out over this matter, as has been reported in the  New Statesman? Will the Minister specify the nature of the discussions between those Departments on this matter, and let us know why that proscription has not proceeded?
	Given that Hizb ut-Tahrir has been proscribed in Germany by Otto Schily, the interior Minister in an SPD-Green Administration, the proscription of the organisation would hardly be a reactionary move. Indeed, the desire for its proscription is endorsed by all those who believe that liberal, multi-ethnic democracies need to be protected from extremists who fly under flags of convenience.
	I suspect that I might be rare in the House—although I note that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) is here—in that I have had the privilege, if that is the word, of being invited to address a Hizb ut-Tahrir meeting in the past. I did not know that Hizb ut-Tahrir had organised the meeting when I was invited to address it. Because I did not know that, and because Hizb ut-Tahrir operates under a cloak of secrecy, I was rendered complicit in an exercise in radicalising young Muslim men. I saw how the organisation operated, and how it sought to divide young Muslim men from the rest of our fellow citizens. I recognise that it acts as a conveyor belt to extremist activity, as the Prime Minister has pointed out.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) pointed out that Hizb ut-Tahrir bore similarities to Trotskyist organisations, and so it does, in that it operates under a number of identities in order to achieve its totalitarian aims. However, it is far more dangerous than Trotskyist organisations ever were in this country.
	The Prime Minister made a speech to the Foreign Policy Centre earlier this year, in which he said:
	"The extremism"—
	which we all need to counter—
	"may have started through religious doctrine and thought, but soon, in offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught in some of the madrassahs in the middle east and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world."
	For those who do not know the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, I shall spell it out briefly. Its ideology is Allah—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the groups that are named in the order, rather than any that are not? I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some discussion on these matters, but I must now call him to order.

Michael Gove: Thank you for bringing me back to the matter under discussion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Why is the Muslim Brotherhood—a proscribed organisation in other countries, as the hon. Member for Hendon pointed out—not being adequately dealt with here? I am sure that the House is aware that there is an individual in the Foreign Office, Mockbul Ali, the Islamic issues adviser, who has described the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami as progressive organisations. Why is the Prime Minister's stated desire to deal with the extremism promulgated by the Muslim Brotherhood not being dealt with effectively by the Government?

George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not rise to the hon. Gentleman's wholly gratuitous—and, as it happens, erroneous—reference to me. I have never attended a meeting of Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, is it in order for an hon. Member to name an individual civil servant in the Foreign Office in that disparaging way, when that civil servant is not here to answer for themselves?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything that is out of order. Members who make speeches must take responsibility for what they say in the Chamber. I would remind hon. Members, however, that we are discussing the list of organisations that are named in the motion.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Will the Minister ensure that, when these provisions are reviewed in future, all the organisations that seek to take young men and turn them into terrorists are kept properly under review? Will he also ensure that any organisations that act as generators of extremism and recruiters for jihad are given the degree of scrutiny that the Prime Minister said that they would be given when he spoke last July, and at the Foreign Policy Centre in February?

Michael Weir: It is clear that terrorist organisations continually split up and change their names, and it is therefore difficult to keep track of them. We appreciate that, and we support the proposal to proscribe these organisations today. There is clear evidence that at least two of them are condemned out of their own mouths.
	I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about keeping the situation under review. History shows that terrorist organisations sometimes split because some of their members move towards democracy. I appreciate the adherence to the precautionary principle, but the Minister should bear in mind the fact that there might be opportunities for some of these organisations to adopt peaceful means, and they should not be thrown away.
	The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru are slightly concerned about the situation regarding Kurdish groups. Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan—TAK—is being proscribed today, and we have no objection to that, as it stands condemned out of its own mouth. The successor groups to the PKK are also being proscribed, under the negative resolution procedure. However, the Kurdish peoples in Turkey, Syria and Iraq have a long history of fighting against non-democratic regimes for their democratic rights. There is now an autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, but the situation in Turkey is still very bad. The Turkish Government have taken action against democratic Kurdish groups, and Kurdish MPs have been imprisoned for using the Kurdish language.
	Will the Minister ensure that, when requests are made for the proscription of groups by foreign Governments—especially Governments such as the Turkish Government, who are not entirely democratic—there is full investigation, so that we can be satisfied that they are groups that we would recognise as terrorist groups, and not simply groups that are unacceptable to the Government of the country in which they operate? There is a long history of oppression of the Kurdish people. We do not object to the proscription of the TAK, but we must ensure that we do not go too far, particularly in relation to Kurdish organisations.

Tony McNulty: I shall deal with the points raised in this very reasonable debate that were specifically about the order, rather than the assorted attempts—however well intentioned—to reopen the wonderful long debates that we had just before the election, which involved sittings lasting until 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning and losing a day's business in the House. Wonderful memories! Nor am I going to go down the memory lane depicted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) when he talked about Trotskyist groups. I shall say no more about that, but anyone who wants to talk about Trotskyist groups in the 1970s—with or without my own inclusion—should see me afterwards.
	In relation to some of the specific points about process, I take the point about the first order that listed some 21 organisations. There was some urgency, once we secured the power to proscribe, to get that initial series of organisations on the statute books as quickly as possible. On reflection, merely an hour and a half—locked as we were into our limited parliamentary procedures—on an order that proscribed 21 organisations was probably not the best way to conduct business. I will take that point back to the Home Office for consideration.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not it a serious discourtesy to the House that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) should ask a series of questions of the Minister and then not be present to hear any answers?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly, it is the convention of the House that Members stay and be present for both the opening and closing remarks.

Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is taking a statutory instrument for the Opposition at 2.30.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, and the debate can continue.

David Heath: I was about to intervene on the Minister to thank him for what he said, and to suggest that we need not to extend the parliamentary time available but to take a series of separate orders in a single debate. That would be the appropriate way of doing it, which he might like to consider.

Tony McNulty: I take that point, too. I cannot, however, tag an order subject to the negative procedure to one subject to the affirmative procedure. That simply cannot happen in our parliamentary procedures. The negative procedure deliberately addresses the issues raised by a number of hon. Members in relation to splinter groups and successor bodies, where a direct link can be made to the original parent body—for want of another phrase—rather than having the affirmative procedure every time there is another clear manifestation of the same group.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked what happens now and how we will take matters forward. As with other proscription orders, we will work with the police to ensure that all options are considered, including the use of non-proscription offences such as the dissemination of terrorist publications. With the Treasury, we are exploring, as we always do, all the options in terms of asset freezing and forfeiture. Incidentally, we do not believe that the two domestic groups, of themselves, have a whole lot of assets to go after. With the high-tech crime unit, we are exploring what we can do with internet service providers, certainly where groups are domestically based, about the continuing provision of what is now a website for an illegal organisation. Under law, I think that I am right that the ISP becomes directly involved if it persists in providing such a service for an illegal organisation. Clearly, that is more difficult in relation to a foreign-based website.
	In terms of the broader points, which were entirely fairly raised, about keeping matters under review, there are two processes. There is the process by which the organisation can apply directly to the Home Secretary and subsequently to the appeals commission, to be de-proscribed. There is also a proscription working group bringing together No. 10, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the police agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office, which continually reviews all the organisations on the list, which are entirely moveable feasts.
	With the greatest respect to the House, the one thing that I cannot do is treat proscription like some sort of Dutch auction, whereby we present a list to the House of those organisations about which we feel that we have sufficient evidence to go down the proscription route, and then indulge in discussions about a range of other organisations. The House has generously invited me to talk about why Hizb ut-Tahrir or any number of organisations are not on the list. As I said at the outset, this is not the definitive list for this year. The Government still have very serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir. We also have concerns about a range of other organisations, some of which have been mentioned by individual Members. On the evidential base that we have, I am simply putting to the House the four organisations listed on the order for proscription. I have not come here to discuss the next potential series of proscribed organisations, not least because of court proceedings that may follow should such organisations be proscribed in due course.

Mike Hancock: The Minister was extraordinarily grateful in taking interventions—[Hon. Members: "Generous."]. The Minister was generous. Can he explain how the head of the security services in this country, the Prime Minister, was able to say over a year ago that there was clear evidence for one particular organisation to be proscribed, and yet one year on we still have not proscribed it? If the Prime Minister had the evidence, surely the Minister had the evidence, and it should be before us this afternoon.

Tony McNulty: I think that the hon. Gentleman made a Freudian slip initially—I am certainly not grateful for that intervention. I have just said that these are very serious matters, and proscription of organisations is very serious. I have not come here to speculate about whether any proscription order will come. On 5 August last year, the Prime Minister clearly mentioned three such organisations. I have come to the House with an order proscribing two of those. I have made it clear that the Government still have serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, but that is not to speculate about whether a proscription is forthcoming. Given the nature of the measures, which are not taken lightly, I implore the House to concentrate on those that the Government feel confident enough to bring forward, rather than to dwell on—with no pun intended—the ifs and buts of other organisations that may be under review and may form the basis of subsequent proscription orders.
	Given the broadly generous way in which the House has received the proscription of those four organisations, I will quit while I am ahead, and commend the order to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

International Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Cawsey.]

Margaret Beckett: These are grave and serious days for the international community.
	Of all the difficult issues around the world, the situation in the middle east is of the greatest immediate concern. Many civilians have been killed. The crisis threatens all our hopes for wider peace and security in the region. Many thousands of British nationals and dual nationals have been caught up in the midst of this violence. Understandably, many are worried about their safety and anxious to leave, and I will say a little more about that, if I may, later.
	I want to begin, however, by reminding us all of the course of recent events, because that context informs our decisions and approach to a situation that has its underlying roots in the events and decisions of past decades. A year or so ago, a period of at least comparative calm—I understand that it is called "tahdia"—was said to exist in Israel and Palestine. Israel withdrew its forces and settlers from Gaza, and although the calm was punctuated by continuing Qassam rocket attacks on Israel, overall levels of violence were significantly down. The new President of Palestine began to establish himself, and almost six months ago the Palestinian people gave a mandate to the representatives of Hamas. That led to demands and pressure from all sides for Hamas to adopt the Quartet's three principles: to renounce violence, to recognise Israel, and to make a commitment to the road map.
	At the beginning of last month, Prime Minister Olmert visited the United States and the United Kingdom. During our discussions and in his public statements, he made it clear that he would be prepared to work for a negotiated settlement with any genuine Palestinian partner for peace. A month ago, on 22 June in Jordan, President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert met for the first time in over a year. President Abbas had also just scheduled a meeting with Hamas Prime Minister Haniya.
	Those were tentative but, I think, important signs of progress. However, Palestinian extremists began again to step up rocket attacks on Israel, and the Israelis to respond with artillery fire. Tragically—as the House will probably remember—a family of seven Palestinians was killed on a beach in Gaza. It was in that situation of substantially heightened tensions that Palestinian militants tunnelled into Israel, killed two soldiers and abducted a third. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that that was a deliberate attempt to destroy those first small signs of a move towards dialogue.
	This was the deteriorating and already dangerous background against which Hezbollah chose to cross into Israel, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more, deliberately pouring petrol on an already burning bonfire. I find it impossible to see that action as anything other than a calculated attempt by extremist forces massively to destabilise the region further, without the slightest regard for the potential impact of their actions on the people of Lebanon.

Joan Ruddock: I entirely agree with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. There can be no doubt that Hezbollah started the conflict. Does my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that Israel's response—300 Lebanese civilians dead, 1,000 injured, a third of them children, and half a million people displaced—is utterly disproportionate?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is aware, I know, that from the outset we have urged on all parties that they should act proportionately, and that they should do everything possible to avoid civilian violence. I regret—as, I know, does my hon. Friend, along with, probably, the whole House—the killing and injuring of, in particular, civilians in Lebanon, in Gaza or in Israel itself. Our main objective must be to establish what can be done to ameliorate the situation.

Michael Ancram: Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question that she has just been asked? Does she believe that the action taken by the Israeli Government in Lebanon, which, initially, was understandable as a response to terrorism, is proportionate or disproportionate?

Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat what I have already said. From the beginning we have urged restraint on Israel, and we continue to do so. From the beginning we have urged Israel—which, of course, argues that it is trying to degrade Hezbollah's ability to continue to attack it—not only to show restraint, but to take every care to avoid civilian casualties.

David Winnick: I have no illusions whatever about the Iranian-backed groups that are causing so much damage to Israel at the moment, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the strong possibility that the lack of forceful condemnation from the United States and Britain of what Israel is doing in retaliation—the number of casualties, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock); the children who are being bombed, killed and seriously injured—constitutes an encouragement to Israel to continue what it is doing?

Margaret Beckett: No. I say to my hon. Friend, and to those in all parts of the House who I know share some of his concerns, that no one—no one at all—is encouraging a continuation of the conflict, either on the Palestinian side, in Hezbollah, or in Israel. My hon. Friend may have noticed that the G8 statement called on all parties to try to create the conditions for a ceasefire. The European Union Foreign Ministers' statement last Monday also called for a cessation of violence.
	I can assure my hon. Friend that no one is encouraging a continuation of violence. What everyone is trying to do in their different ways—and people will disagree with some of the ways that are being chosen, whoever is doing it and whatever they are doing—is make an appallingly dangerous situation less dangerous.

Crispin Blunt: That really will not do as an explanation. Everyone understands that the United States has sent an implicit signal to Israel that she has a period in which to try to deal with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel's strategy in trying to do that is as we see it on our television screens, and as witnessed by the people of Lebanon.

Margaret Beckett: I do not accept that, although I understand the argument. I hear and I read and I am familiar—from before I became Foreign Secretary—with the fact that people impute all sorts of actions and motives to the Government of the United States, as they do, indeed, to our Government, whether in partnership or complicity with the US or on our own. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, on the basis of many conversations, I know that everyone wishes to see the violence diminished and ceased. All kinds of ideas are floating around—I shall refer to one or two of them later—and all sorts of initiatives are being taken to find a way out of the situation for the parties engaged in it. However, one of simplest imaginable ideas—it has no complications and the detail does not have to be worked through—is for those who kidnapped the soldiers to release them.

Chris Mullin: Everything that my right hon. Friend says makes sense and I would not dissent from her analysis of the origins of the conflict, but is it not just a tiny bit shameful that, although we rightly condemn Hezbollah for what it has done, we can find nothing stronger than the word "regret" to describe the slaughter, misery and mayhem unleashed by Israel on a fragile country such as Lebanon?

Margaret Beckett: I hope that my hon. Friend will have noticed—I think that he will, because he is a fair-minded as well as highly intelligent man—that although I have stringently condemned Hezbollah for wantonly and without the smallest fig leaf of an excuse choosing to make an already bad situation infinitely worse, I have tried to be relatively proportionate in what I have said about all other players.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Beckett: I have already given way four or five times and many Members want to speak. I propose to make further progress with my speech before giving way again; otherwise, I am mindful that the entire debate will run out of time even before I—let alone anyone else—have finished speaking.
	I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—I know that he will accept my assurance, however much he disagrees with what I am doing or saying—that I am striving in every way I can to act effectively to bring about the position that he desires. I will continue to act in the way that I believe is most likely to be effective, which is not always the way that people would wish me to act.
	As the whole House knows, Hezbollah does not act alone. Behind it and, I am afraid, lending it support and direction are Syria and Iran. Syria finances Hezbollah and facilitates the transfer of weapons, including thousands of missiles that appear to be supplied by Iran. Against that difficult and dangerous background, the focus of the international community must surely be on what action can be taken to bring about a durable ceasefire. First and foremost, while attempts are made to create the conditions for a ceasefire, the international community must strive to ease the suffering of civilian populations caught up in the fighting.

Andrew Love: Recognising that Hezbollah arose out of the consequences of the invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis in 1982, is not my right hon. Friend concerned about what might arise this time, especially if we dilly-dally over a ceasefire and are slow to provide the conditions for Lebanon to get back on its feet?

Margaret Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend that everyone is aware of the many and varied disasters that could follow from these events. There are all sorts of potential outcomes, hardly any of them good. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South a few moments ago—that the Government are trying to do everything that they can to improve the situation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Beckett: I am not giving way for the moment, as I have already said that I want to make some progress.
	The European Union could play a particularly important role in humanitarian action, and I urged that on my colleagues at the General Affairs Council on Monday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has agreed to provide £2 million in immediate humanitarian assistance to Lebanon. His Department is also arranging for two humanitarian advisers and one reconstruction adviser to be sent to the region as soon as access becomes possible. The EU has also pledged €10 million in humanitarian assistance.
	Secondly, we must continue to step up our diplomatic efforts. The UN Secretary- General's special envoy to the region, Vijay Nambiar, will report back to the UN Security Council today. In addition, the EU's high representative, Javier Solana, has visited the region twice and we hope that he will continue those efforts. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in repeated contact with Prime Minister Siniora and with Prime Minister Olmert, and both my right hon. Friend and I have been in contact with many others in the region and across the globe.

Mark Lazarowicz: When the UN Secretary-General's special envoy reports to the UN later today, will the British Government support a call for an immediate ceasefire? People in this country see what is happening on their television screens and they want to see our Government taking a lead in the international community and doing everything that they can to stop the violence on all sides now, immediately and with no qualifications.

Margaret Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend not only that we are taking a lead, but that we are doing everything we can to try to bring an end to the violence. With regard to our response to the special envoy's report, my hon. Friend will have to forgive me if I wait to hear it before I respond.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Prime Minister, in his statement on the G8 summit, refused to say whether we would recall our ambassador from Damascus for discussions. Given the consensus that the Foreign Secretary clearly has with the Prime Minister that the Syrians are implicated with Hezbollah, why cannot we take that simple step?

Margaret Beckett: We could do that, and I understand and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, I go back to my acid test, and I do not think that it would help. At present, we would rather have our ambassador in Damascus, able to convey our point of view.

Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hezbollah should be condemned for placing its munitions in densely populated areas, and does she agree that that is the main reason for the high level of civilian casualties as Israel tries to defend its population?

Margaret Beckett: I am well aware of both the assertion that that is part of the problem and the concern that such activities cause on all sides. I take entirely my hon. Friend's position.

David Heath: Many of us recall the admirably balanced statement made by the Minister for the Middle East on Monday when he said that
	"we must impress on the Israelis the international rules of conflict. When civilians are killed and the terrible phrase "collateral damage" is used to describe what is seen as a legitimate attack, the impression given across the middle east and the world is not a good one."
	He also said:
	"We certainly expect Israel to abide by international law and we are totally opposed to collective punishment."—[ Official Report, 17 June 2006; Vol. 449, c. 28-32.]
	Is that still the Government's position, and, if so, will the Foreign Secretary say so out loud, otherwise, the great fear is that disproportionate action by Israel will invite exactly the same sort of response in future years by terrorists who wish to promote instability in the region?

Margaret Beckett: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, because he did extremely well on Monday. Of course, the views and concerns he expressed remain the view of the Government. I will go further and say to the hon. Gentleman what I have said in several forums, including to representatives of the Government of Israel, that it seems that, apart from in very few quarters, there is a really widespread recognition and acceptance that these particular events—and their scale, with regard to Lebanon especially—were precipitated by a wanton act of destruction by Hezbollah. It is a very unusual position for Israel to be in for almost everybody to say that there was no excuse for Hezbollah's action and it made an already bad situation worse. That offers the Government and the people of Israel a window of opportunity to make their case about the nature and scale of the attack and the undermining that they are facing. In the many conversations that I have had with representatives of that Government, I have made the point that Israel could close that window of opportunity, which would be a pity.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Beckett: If colleagues will forgive me, I had better progress a little further.
	We should also take forward the G8 proposal for the United Nations Secretary-General to develop a plan to implement in full Security Council resolution 1559. The core of any such plan would be to enable the Lebanese Government and their armed forces to establish their authority throughout the country, in particular in the south. Such a plan is likely to require a different sort of international military presence from the present UN force, UNIFIL, to give direct support to the Lebanese army and to help with the disarming of militias, including Hezbollah.
	So our goals are twofold: the earliest possible end to hostilities, including the release of the kidnapped soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon, and a process that will enable the Lebanese Government and their armed forces to take full control of the country, with international monitors. Long-term stability will be possible only if Syria and Iran end their interference in Lebanese internal affairs in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State; she is giving a measured response in her speech. What offer of hope can she give today to the thousands of British people and their families—and those for whom we are responsible—who are caught up in the war zone and would like to leave immediately? They need a message of hope and reassurance that they will be looked after, even though that is a very big task.

Margaret Beckett: I never suspected the right hon. Gentleman of having psychic powers, but that is exactly the point to which I was about to turn. However, before I do, I shall give way to a few more Members.

John Hemming: I thank the Secretary of State for her comments in respect of what the Government wish to see. Why would they not wish to see a ceasefire without the return of the soldiers?

Margaret Beckett: Everyone wants to see a cessation of violence as soon as possible. Many of the other routes that one could urge—the international community is urging them, and exploring and trying to develop them, and looking at the detail—will take time. It will be complicated and difficult to work them out and to pursue them. Releasing kidnapped soldiers is not difficult at all, and takes no time at all.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that there is public concern. Many people do not understand that we have a weak Lebanese Government that everyone is trying to support, but at the same time it seems that Israel has gone over the top and is destroying that Government. Therefore, what is happening could be counterproductive, no matter how many resolutions we have.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right that one of the concerns that is felt throughout the international community—in Israel, too, I believe—is that no one wishes the Lebanese Government to be undermined, and everyone recognises the importance of the continuation of a democratic Government in Lebanon, not least in the interests of Israel itself. The Government share the concern that my hon. Friend expresses; it is one of the anxieties in our mind.

Neil Gerrard: If we are asking the Lebanese Government to implement UN Security Council resolution 1559 and we expect them to do things that the UN Security Council has asked, should we not make equivalent demands on the Government of Israel, who have ignored Security Council resolutions for years? If we are trying to have a balanced approach to this problem, it is false to equate the actions of an organisation such as Hezbollah with those of a state; one expects completely different standards of behaviour from a state that is a member of the United Nations.

Margaret Beckett: I can only say to my hon. Friend that when I looked at the part of my speech that refers to United Nations resolutions, I knew that someone would get up and mention 20 others that various sides are in breach of. Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed; it is a point of view that I have heard expressed often in this House. However, I say to him, with the greatest respect, that one of the reasons I stated at the outset of my speech that I proposed to try to curtail my remarks to the immediate context of the events we are discussing is that I am aware—I do not say this as any kind of criticism—of how deep-seated is the history of all such events. I know that many angers and anxieties have been expressed, and that various resolutions have and have not been observed. We could go on for weeks considering these issues, but at the moment, there is one of the worst and most dangerous crises in the middle east that we have seen for a very long time. That is why I am trying to concentrate on what might be done to ease that specific facet of what I totally accept is a complex and difficult problem.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry but I must move on.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked about British families and of course, many thousands of British nationals and their families have been directly affected by the violence in Lebanon. Embassy and consular staff have been working flat out to organise the evacuation of those British nationals who want to leave Lebanon—that, of course, is not all of them—as quickly and as safely as possible. A Foreign Office rapid deployment team flew out to Beirut last Saturday, and another is in Cyprus helping to support British nationals arriving there. There are 73 additional staff on the ground in Cyprus and in Beirut, and that number will rise to 109 by Thursday. The majority of the staff are from the Foreign Office, but they also include immigration officers, members of the Red Cross and medical personnel.

Andrew Miller: To give some hope to the thousands of families who are worried, I point out that the Foreign Office has been fantastic in providing information to a constituent of mine—I am pleased to say that he boarded a ship this morning—and his family. The accuracy of that information, which was provided in the most difficult circumstances, was of the highest level. This House should put on the record our thanks to the staff on the ground and to the Ministry of Defence for the work that they have done, which has given real hope to families such as those whom the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned, who are understandably very concerned about their loved ones.

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, we normally hear only from those who feel that public servants have failed them—that is perfectly understandable; I do not point this out as a criticism—so I am genuinely extremely grateful to him for that intervention. I know that what he says is true, and that his comments will be much appreciated by those who have volunteered to engage in this work.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Margaret Beckett: If I may, I shall make a little progress first.
	Sixty-three of the most vulnerable British nationals were evacuated on Monday 17 July and a further 175 people were evacuated by HMS Gloucester on Tuesday. Yesterday, a further 863 people left on HMS York and HMS Gloucester, but today we hope to evacuate even larger numbers. HMS Bulwark, which was expected to dock in Beirut this morning, can take up to 2,000 people, and we have other ships standing by. Our teams in Cyprus have arranged for those who wish to continue back to the United Kingdom to fly home, and where necessary we have chartered special aircraft to do that. We are co-ordinating closely across government to support those who arrive back in the United Kingdom.
	We are also aware that approximately 100 British nationals and British dual nationals are still in south Lebanon. We are in touch with some of them and are trying to contact others, but at the moment it is too dangerous to travel south to try to get them out. A United Nations ferry has been allowed into Tyre and has picked up many foreign nationals; we are urgently seeking to confirm how many of them are British nationals. Ten British nationals left Sidon yesterday in a bus convoy and should be evacuated to Cyprus today. We are working with our EU partners to get all EU nationals who want to leave out of south Lebanon as quickly and safely as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Beckett: I give way first to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. She will have seen in the recent Intelligence and Security Committee report that one of its priorities is Iranian-backed terrorism. She will have also seen yesterday's comment by Hezbollah that it is preparing to unleash its forces in America and Europe. What is the Foreign Secretary's view of Iranian-backed terrorism inside this country?

Margaret Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman says, there are indeed concerns about the scale and nature of terrorism in this country, and about whether some of that is inspired or funded in any way by forces in and around Iran. He will know that that issue has also been a concern for our operations in, for example, Iraq. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that our security services and police are doing everything possible to monitor such flows of information and to ensure that we keep British people as safe as we reasonably can.

Ann Clwyd: I remind my right hon. Friend that other people want to go in the other direction. Earlier today, we met a senior Lebanese Member of Parliament who is very active with the Lebanese-British Friendship Society but who cannot return home because the conflict means that there is no airport for him to fly into. His perception is that Israel has been given a free hand to destroy Lebanon. I consider that to be a very serious accusation indeed, and he also described the very bad humanitarian situation that has developed already. Why cannot this House—today and with no preconditions—call for a ceasefire on all sides?

Margaret Beckett: I am very sorry to learn about the concerns that my right hon. Friend has expressed, and entirely take her point that some people are trapped in this country rather than in Lebanon. I take very seriously what she says about the concern expressed by the gentleman to whom she referred, and I completely understand why he should make the observations that she has reported, given his perspective on the situation and what he is seeing and hearing in this country. I can only repeat what I said earlier—that the Government have no wish or desire for the events in Lebanon to continue for a second longer than is necessary, but that the people with the simplest levers in their hands are those who hold the kidnapped soldiers.

Tony Lloyd: Has there been any discussion with the Israeli authorities about what they can do to give proper guarantees that British nationals, and members of the international community more generally, will not come under Israeli fire during this very difficult withdrawal period?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to how we are trying to ensure people's safety, but there are all sorts of different problems. One is how safety is affected when the bombs and bullets are flying, but there are other, more mundane difficulties. For example, the vessels that we are sending are the right ones for the job—and it has been a source of great reassurance for many to be told that the Royal Navy was on its way to collect them—but by their very nature they are high-sided vessels. That is just one of the considerations that we must take into account, but I assure him that the concerns that he raises have for many days been part of the dialogue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Beckett: I apologise, but I shall not give way. I have been on my feet for half an hour already and am very mindful that many colleagues wish to speak in the debate.
	The evacuation is a massive operation. To remove thousands of civilians by sea from a country that is under naval blockade and subject to aerial bombardment is a difficult and complex task. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) just indicated, the safety of British nationals has been our paramount concern throughout.
	It has never been simply a question of asking people to turn up at the docks and wait for a ship. Indeed, it would obviously be irresponsible to move large numbers of people around Beirut if, by so doing so, we put them in greater danger. That is why we have conducted this evacuation in phases, each carefully planned and co-ordinated with countries in the region and with our international partners. The whole House will join me in paying tribute again to staff from my Department, to the armed forces and to all the others who are working so hard to make the operation run smoothly.
	I know that the House is likely to concentrate in the debate on the immediate crisis, but I ought to take this opportunity to report on a further difficult issue that engages the Government—Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.
	On 8 May in New York, the E3 plus 3 decided to prepare a full and comprehensive set of proposals that would support Iran's declared desire for modern civil nuclear power, while also addressing international concerns. We all believed that, in its own interests and those of the wider international community, Iran should heed the repeated calls from the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors for a suspension of activities related to uranium enrichment and reprocessing, and come to the negotiating table to find a diplomatic solution.
	That extended package of proposals was finalised in Vienna on 1 June and presented by the EU high representative, Javier Solana, in Tehran a few days later. He conveyed the agreed view of the E3 plus 3 that we would endeavour speedily to address any queries or concerns and hoped for an early response.
	That was over six weeks ago. Iranian Government members have repeatedly told the news media that there are ambiguities in the proposals or that they raise questions that will need to be answered. A large number of attempts were made to arrange meetings at which any questions and ambiguities could be addressed, but those proposed meetings were rejected, including the cancelling of a proposed meeting on 5 July at the last minute and, apparently, for no good reason.
	Finally, a meeting was arranged for 11 July. The Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, met Javier Solana and E3 and Russian officials. However, he raised no issues of substance and said that he was unable either to give a response to our proposals or even to indicate when Iran may be able to do so.
	The E3 plus 3 concluded that we had no option but to return to the Security Council to resume the work on a Security Council resolution, which was suspended two and a half months ago. Our proposals remain on the table and we continue to encourage the Iranians to take the positive path on offer. Should Iran decide to do so and to take the steps required by the IAEA board, we would be prepared to suspend activity in the Security Council.

Ben Wallace: One of the reasons that Hezbollah is much more potent and that Iran represents a significant threat is that the Chinese Government have been consistently assisting the guidance of their missiles, including the one that hit the Israeli cruiser last week. Iran has appointed an ambassador to the UK in the past two weeks. Has the Foreign Secretary called him, since his arrival, or indeed the Chinese ambassador, to her office to press on them the fact that third-party support for the nuclear programme and Hezbollah is not acceptable?

Margaret Beckett: First, I am not sure whether the Iranian ambassador has arrived yet— [Interruption.] If he has, I have not been aware of that. We have continued discussions with the Chinese Government. I know that there are things that we do that China will be concerned about and vice versa, but, at the present time, there is a great deal of united concern in the Security Council about the position with regard to Iranian work on nuclear activity. There is a great wish to work together to resolve some of these difficulties, as we did last week in reaching a united conclusion about events in North Korea. That has to be, at this moment in time, the focus of our activity and relationship.

Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I must finish.
	The current crisis in the middle east and the ongoing negotiations with Iran provide the international community with huge and pressing security challenges, but, of course, we face other such challenges in that region and across the globe. The Government remain committed to working with our partners across the broad agenda of international concerns.
	In Afghanistan, we are helping the Afghan Government to extend the rule of law across their country. In Iraq, we are giving our full support to the people and to their elected Government as they struggle to build a better future in the face of terrible violence. In Darfur, we are leading calls for the deployment of a UN force and we are supporting the African Union force. On Tuesday, we confirmed that we would provide the African Union with a further £20 million. As I mentioned earlier, the Security Council has taken firm and unanimous action on North Korea in response to its testing of long-range missiles.
	Today, an active and engaged foreign policy does not just mean dealing with so-called global security. It also means dealing with the global insecurity that can exacerbate international tensions and stresses, so we are pushing hard for an ambitious outcome to the Doha development round. We welcomed the renewed commitment by the EU, the US and the G20 at the recent G8 summit to overcome the remaining obstacles to agreement and, crucially, to show more flexibility. There is more at stake than the economic well-being of developed and developing countries. There is the fate of the world's poorest and most vulnerable and the credibility of the multilateral system as a whole.
	I am also determined that the Foreign Office will be at the forefront of a step change in the international diplomacy on climate change. Global warming is one of the greatest threats that we face as an international community, and progress on it is needed with immediacy and urgency. Again, there was some progress at the G8, including recognition of the need for a clear goal to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations. The Gleneagles dialogue meeting in Mexico will be the next step in taking that forward.
	I began today by saying that these are grave and difficult times for the international community. I doubt that a single person in the House would disagree with that, however much there may be disagreement on other issues. In the current crisis in the middle east, it is not just the fate of those countries most directly involved and their peoples that is at issue. Rather, what is at stake is any prospect for a lasting peace in the region and with it the wider security of the international community as a whole. What stands out with utter clarity is that any or all of these different issues and events can be addressed, let alone resolved, only if we seek the maximum amount of common ground and co-operation from the international community as a whole. That is what the Government have sought to do and will continue to do.

William Hague: I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary's speech and to the Leader of the House for arranging today's debate, albeit a shorter one than would have been ideal. I put it to the Foreign Secretary that there may be a strong case for a further report to the House next Tuesday after Foreign Office questions and before the House adjourns. The House should take as much time as possible to discuss a matter of central concern to us all before the summer recess—the tragic situation of Lebanon, the heavy and daily loss of life in Israel and Lebanon and the ominous portents for the middle east of the outbreak of fighting of which she has spoken.
	I want to pull off the perhaps impossible trick of ranging a little more widely than the Foreign Secretary did, while keeping my remarks briefer, as she generously turned her speech into a debate by taking so many interventions. I start, as she did, with the immediate situation. The immediate origins of today's crisis are clear. She has been clear about where the responsibility lies, and we agree with her about that. One of the first concerns of all of us in the House, as reflected in many interventions, has been the safety of British citizens caught up in the conflict. I join in congratulating our embassy, consular staff and members of the armed forces who have been working around the clock to evacuate those people. We trust that that will continue to gain momentum and that British citizens will be removed from harm's way.
	There have been some criticisms of the transmission and quality of the information provided by our embassy in Beirut. If there have been any deficiencies, I hope that the Foreign Office has taken steps to rectify them and to learn any appropriate lessons for the future, including whether other nations were able to act more quickly by chartering passenger ships immediately. There may be lessons to be learned.
	I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will be able to say how many British citizens are trapped in areas that have been put out of reach, and what discussions are taking place with the Israeli Government about ensuring their safety. While our first concern is of course British citizens, we must not forget the plight of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people trapped between the incapacity of their Government to tackle the terrorist threat in their midst and the resolve of Israel to attack. It is fair to assume that imminently there will be a serious humanitarian crisis in parts of Lebanon. The Lebanese ambassador told me earlier of potentially half a million displaced people and a serious law and order problem when many of them arrive in Beirut, added to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the occupied territories in the aftermath of the election of Hamas.
	As Lebanon has only recently begun to emerge from nearly 30 years of the devastation of civil war and to remove a little of the instability that lurks behind its recent transition to democracy, that situation represents the most desperate tragedy for the people of Lebanon. One of the most dangerous outcomes of the crisis would be civil war breaking out again and a democratically accepted Government in Lebanon collapsing. If that happens, Israel could be left with an even worse situation than the one that it currently faces—a possibility that surely underlines the need to take urgent international action now.

Susan Kramer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that DFID and other donors face a difficult challenge as they see their investment in the reconstruction of Lebanon, which at last gave hope to its communities, destroyed in a matter of weeks? Does he think that the Government can persuade donors once again to commit that kind of money, knowing that a repetition of the situation will continue to be possible?

William Hague: The situation is difficult and dispiriting. People will look once again to the generosity of the British and other taxpayers and donors. I believe that that generosity will continue in the future but the situation is immensely dispiriting, which brings me to the immediate issue of what can be done without delay to bring an end to the current bloodshed.
	The right of Israel to defend itself, like any country, is clear. Its desire severely to damage the ability of Hezbollah to attack the Israeli civilian population is understandable. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, calling for an unconditional ceasefire from Israel is futile, because there is unlikely to be a ceasefire unless the kidnapped soldiers are returned, rocket attacks on Haifa cease and some hope is provided that the international community will help Lebanon to have a stable future. However, it is not clear that it is in the interests of Israel, let alone of anyone else, to delay for one moment the effort to bring about a ceasefire under those or any other conditions.
	In response to the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I think that we can say that elements of the Israeli response are disproportionate, including the attacks on Lebanese army units, the loss of civilian life and essential infrastructure, and the enormous damage to the capacity of the Lebanese Government. A disproportionate Israeli response will damage the Israeli cause in the long term, even if it was partly brought about, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, by the callous stationing of military units in civilian areas.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Lebanese Government's case would be immensely strengthened if they publicly disowned the activities of Hezbollah and requested the international community to take the action necessary to contain Hezbollah that they evidently cannot undertake themselves?

William Hague: My hon. Friend points to part of the immense difficulty for the Lebanese Government, because there are of course Hezbollah members of that Government. There is no doubt that the Government of Lebanon would like the implementation of UN resolution 1559. They believed that they had started a political process that could lead to that, but it did not happen in sufficient time to spare us from the conflict, which was launched deliberately, as the Foreign Secretary said, by Hezbollah.

Tony Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman makes the essential case that as an act of policy Lebanon must be strengthened in terms of the functioning of the state, so that we can expect the Lebanese to do the things that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has just suggested—but that will take time. Is not it in Israel's interests to make sure that the Lebanon that emerges from the current situation has the capacity to rebuild itself? Continued bombardment will destroy that capacity.

William Hague: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point and underlines the urgency of the case from the point of view of the international community. It is by no means clear that continued bombardment of Hezbollah areas will result in military success for Israel. The idea that it is somehow in the interests of Israel or of a longer-term solution for the fighting to go on for several more weeks may prove to be woefully misguided. The removal of Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and the implementation of UN resolution 1559 will require a political process of some kind, which requires a successful Lebanese Government who can work with the Israeli Government.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Brooks Newmark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

William Hague: Let me make a little more progress, or my speech will become as long as the Foreign Secretary's, understandably, became.
	I do not underestimate the immense difficulties for anyone trying to bring about an agreed ceasefire in a conflict where one party is a terrorist organisation whose primary links are to countries such as Iran and Syria, which are already at loggerheads with most of the international community. However, it was dispiriting that the G8 summit at St. Petersburg, despite the reference to the UN Secretary-General of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, produced so little unity and such an apparent shortage of the will to take immediate action. The Prime Minister's famous "Yo" conversation with President Bush meant that the headlines were once again about those two leaders being too close together, when the real story was surely that the G8 leaders as a body were not remotely close enough to each other. The evident failure of the leaders of countries with a huge influence in the middle east region, including France and Russia, to overcome their differences even to the extent of being able to take some co-ordinated initiative was the most enduring impression of the G8 summit.

Andrew Love: Was not one of the great successes of the Cedar revolution that the Syrians were made to leave Lebanon, and is not one of the great dangers now that Syria will fill the vacuum that is created?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. Again, that is a powerful point. Most of the hon. Members who have intervened on me or the Foreign Secretary so far have made powerful points—again underlining the need for the international community to move as quickly as possible.

William Cash: Did my right hon. Friend by any chance listen to the remarks of Javier Solana on "Newsnight" yesterday, which quite clearly indicated concern about the position? Will my right hon. Friend indicate by what authority Javier Solana would speak on behalf of the European Union as a whole when the Government on the one hand and my right hon. Friend on the other see that there is a need to have a clear path to producing a solution to this problem, which will not come as a result of the intervention of people such as him?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will forgive me—even though I may have some sympathy with what he says, we are not going to resolve that issue in today's debate. That is not the debate's role. Our priority is the immediate crisis in the middle east, in which EU representatives and others may have a constructive role to play.

Neil Gerrard: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the G8 and the fact that nothing very strong had been said. Is not one of the real problems the US attitude? If any other state had been doing the sort of thing that Israel has been doing and smashing to pieces the infrastructure of one of its neighbours, we would have heard much stronger words from the G8, the US, the UK Government and the UN.

William Hague: I do not want to apportion blame about the G8. I am making a general point. The United States has enormous influence over Israel, but France has enormous influence in the Arab world and Russia has enormous influence when it comes to Iran. There is a general argument to be made about the ability, willingness and capacity of the leaders of those countries to work together on something such as this. The finger cannot be pointed just at the United States.
	Greater co-ordinated action, not just in the UN, is now needed. I hope that the Government can tell us more about the apparent plans of the US Secretary of State to travel to the middle east, about whether there is any possibility of the Prime Minister travelling there, as he clearly offered to go in his conversation with President Bush, and about whether the announced visit of the French Prime Minister to Lebanon is in any way co-ordinated with British and American diplomatic efforts.
	It is also important to hear much more about the proposal floated by the Government for an international force to act as a buffer in southern Lebanon. We should have an open mind about such a proposal, but not forget the immense difficulties faced by such a force in the 1980s, which resulted in heavy loss of life and mounting resentment against the west. To avoid the limitations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, such a force would have to have a robust mandate, operate on a large scale, and be well equipped and made up of good quality troops. Given that the British Army is stretched to the limit, and American forces could not fulfil a peacekeeping role in this context, it is not clear where those forces are to come from. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, he will be able to say more about the discussions taking place with our allies, particularly France, and about whether these proposals are being worked up in detail and whether it is understood that, to be useful, such a force would have to be involved in actually disarming Hezbollah—obviously a difficult undertaking.
	We all hope that the meeting of the UN Security Council will help to produce a strong impetus for a co-ordinated approach from the world's leading powers—particularly one involving Russia and France, for the reasons that I have just given. We all fully realise that the Government cannot bring about such co-ordination on their own, but the efforts of the British Government in calling for it should be vigorous and clear. So far, the failure to produce an international initiative is ominously reminiscent of the early stages of the Balkan crisis of the 1990s. One of the reasons why this is so worrying is that the crisis in Lebanon is likely to make the other problems of the middle east harder to deal with. Those problems, taken together, are becoming by far the single greatest foreign policy challenge for us and our allies.
	It should be a sobering thought for all of us who deal with foreign affairs—in government or opposition—that instability in the middle east could become seriously worse in the coming years. Whoever wins the next election in this country or the United States could easily face a nuclear-armed Iran, continued violence in Afghanistan, a still unstable Iraq, a stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians and major instability in one or more of our major Arab allies all at the same time. All those conflicts have the potential to feed into, or to be hijacked by, forms of international terrorism.

Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point about the need for international action. Does he agree that British interests are under direct attack? British citizens are having to be evacuated, British forces are being diverted and British aid money is being destroyed and bombarded. Does he share my concern that the British Government do not seem to be able to speak clearly about British interests without reference to an American lead that requires them to conform entirely, rather than defend our interests as well?

William Hague: The British Government have to work closely with our allies, including our American allies. There should be a distinctive British approach to the middle east and, despite the limitations of a short debate, I shall mention that briefly in a few moments.
	I was making the point that such a combination of factors presents one of the most alarming outlooks for world peace that we have seen in decades. Even though this week's urgent news is from Lebanon, it is thus vital to keep in mind the many other components of the darkening scene in the middle east and to develop a clear strategy for the coming years. As the Foreign Secretary did, I want to touch on a few of those other matters.
	On Israeli-Palestinian relations, there is an urgent need to find a route back to a genuine and equitable peace process on the basis of a two-state solution. That clearly requires the new Palestinian Authority to meet the international community's demands to renounce violence, to recognise Israel and to accept previous agreements. It also requires Israel to preserve the Palestinian institutions and infrastructure that will form the basis of a Palestinian state. The security barrier that was erected by Israel, which many of us have visited, has, for the moment, brought greater security for Israelis, but it is now clearer than ever that long-term peace and security for Israel can come only through agreement with its neighbours. When the Minister for the Middle East winds up the debate, will he indicate whether the Government can tell us anything more about any progress at all on such matters? Can anything more be done to ensure that the necessary flow of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people actually takes place?
	In parallel, we have the continuing stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme, about which the Foreign Secretary spoke. We certainly welcome the decision to return the issue to the Security Council. Britain has quite rightly been at the forefront of efforts to generate and maintain consensus over Iran. We hope that the united front that the permanent members of the Security Council have shown to date will be maintained now that we are approaching a critical juncture in our dealings with Iran. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether we can be confident of the robust support of all members of the Security Council at this stage. Have Russia and China indicated at all their willingness to support a resolution that would pave the way for meaningful sanctions, if necessary, should Iranian intransigence continue?
	At the same time, we face a very difficult situation in Iraq, with the UN assessing the number of civilian deaths as 6,000 in May and June alone. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), has conceded that the threat level in Basra has increased, and the Prime Minister recently stated that Iranian armaments have caused the deaths of British soldiers. It would be a disaster to do anything now that would make the job of the democratically elected Iraqi Government more difficult. The one encouraging factor is that they have been able to take control of larger areas of their own country, but are Ministers satisfied that there are sufficient patrols along the Iran-Iraq border and that the security situation in southern Iraq will not deteriorate further? As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) asked the Foreign Secretary, if we believe that Iran is sponsoring terrorist attacks on our troops, what action is to be taken? There is no indication that the Iranian ambassador has been called in. What the Prime Minister says publicly and the Foreign Office does in relation to ambassadors should be consistent, so we hope that it will be in the coming weeks.
	Simultaneously, in Afghanistan—if I may briefly mention that subject—the Government have admitted that British troops in Helmand have met stiffer resistance than was anticipated. More troops have been sent, as we know, but given the serious possibility that further troops will be required for the Afghanistan mission to succeed, would it not be a good idea for the Government now to make the case to our NATO allies that the consequences of failure in Afghanistan would be catastrophic, and that a much larger contribution may be required from the rest of NATO?
	Yesterday, in a Parliamentary answer to the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Secretary of State for Defence said:
	"Neither the Taliban, nor the range of illegally armed groups, currently pose a threat to the long-term stability of Afghanistan."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 342W.]
	It would be interesting to know whether that assessment, which seems rather complacent, is shared by Foreign Office Ministers. Although an enormous amount of good work has been done in Afghanistan, the overall picture after five years is still of a country with weak institutions, widespread corruption and a deteriorating security environment. It is of paramount importance to give renewed vigour and co-ordination to the international reconstruction effort. We have advocated the appointment of an international co-ordinator of such efforts with a powerful mandate. The Government have said that that is a constructive suggestion, but I am not aware that anything has been done about it, even though, given the persistent reports of poor co-ordination, waste and corruption, the matter would seem to be of the highest urgency.
	All those issues have common threads, which I shall draw together. Time and again, the same countries deliberately work against our efforts to secure peace in the middle east. The same grievances of western bias and unfair policies are voiced by parties in the different conflicts. All those grievances require a firm, clear and hard-headed approach from the British Government, but the fact that there are so many interlocking conflicts underscores the need for all of us in this country to develop a clear and coherent foreign policy towards the middle east, and to pursue it consistently over many years. Our genuine influence in the middle east is at a low ebb, and no Foreign Secretary can be satisfied with that. That is a great challenge for an incoming Foreign Secretary, so I hope that the right hon. Lady will take it up.
	Such a strategy for the middle east must include serious economic and security initiatives, accompanied by a serious effort to raise and sustain the level of our contacts throughout the region. A glance at our relations with the Gulf states illustrates the point and the need for the strategy. Countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates could play key roles in our dealings with Iran and in the future of Iraq. They are our natural allies, yet in nine years of highly active foreign policy the Prime Minister has not visited those countries. There may be much more that we could do to help them with their regional security framework, and there is almost certainly more that we could do to boost trade and economic ties. There is a great deal more that we could do to foster links between Parliaments and educational institutions, to promote cultural links and to encourage civil society and co-operation on terrorism, religious radicalism, climate change and nuclear proliferation.
	Today, I received a written answer from the Foreign Secretary saying that if any security initiative in the Gulf is to be successful, leadership must come from within the region. That may be true, but much more could be done to stimulate such an initiative. Maintaining contacts in the region should be one of the highest priorities for the Foreign Office. The Prime Minister's personal envoy to the middle east should not be his fundraiser, however well intentioned he may be; I put it to the Foreign Secretary—this is intended to be helpful—that the Prime Minister's personal envoy to the middle east should be the Foreign Secretary, relentlessly backed up by our ambassadors. Other instances of what could be done include elevating NATO's Mediterranean dialogue, which includes Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, to the level of genuine partnership in the broader region of the middle east. That could contribute to regional security, stability and so on—I could go on, but many other hon. Members wish to speak.
	Those measures and probably many more are required if the United Kingdom is to make diplomacy in the middle east a strong priority. We need to ensure that the machinery of government in our country is properly equipped and designed to deliver such a co-ordinated approach. Three weeks ago in the House of Lords, the noble Lord Owen, a former Foreign Secretary, delivered a speech that ought to be read by all hon. Members, in which he argued that the changes introduced by the Prime Minister to the way in which the Cabinet is involved in and informed about foreign and defence policy has contributed to a series of miscalculations. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who served in the Cabinet, is nodding at that.
	Lord Owen pointed out that the introduction of Cabinet secretariats inside No. 10 no longer serving the entire Cabinet led to other senior Ministers being denied access to the full flow of information coming back from Army commanders or from the Foreign Secretary to the Prime Minister, leading to issues not being evaluated and decisions not taken in a properly balanced way. Given the lack of planning for reconstruction in Iraq and the evolution of policies so far in relation to Afghanistan, such issues need to be addressed. Our armed forces have never let us down and it not acceptable if the operation of Government might do so.
	I believe that to drive reinvigorated and long-term policy of British engagement in the middle east is a major challenge for the Foreign Secretary, but it is one that she ought to take up, for we know full well that even when the immediate crisis has passed, the forces that precipitated that crisis will create many more and are becoming stronger all the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on.

Mike Gapes: On behalf of those of us who follow foreign affairs closely, I begin by saying that the dedication and commitment of the British people who are helping to get our citizens out of Lebanon has rightly been praised in the debate. When the crisis is over, I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee will look at the issue in the same way as we reviewed what was done after the tsunami and after hurricane Katrina in the United States. The work that is done by many, many people in the crisis teams and in the region is often taken for granted, but they work long hours and incredibly hard, and we should recognise the role that they are playing.
	Much has been said by the Foreign Secretary about the origins of the present crisis and I shall not dwell on that. I shall focus on how we can move forward and out of the crisis. The situation is potentially extremely dangerous. One reason is that Syria and Iran are using Hezbollah as a proxy for their own political positions. Syria and Iran have the ability to tell Hezbollah to stop what it is doing. They have the ability to cut off its supply of weaponry and stop its funding and training camps. The question is what Syria and Iran will do.
	On the other side, we have seen the reaction by the Israeli Government, who are a new Government with a Prime Minister who has been in office only a short time and who does not have a military background, and a new Defence Minister who is a trade union leader, whose own town was attacked by rockets from Gaza for a considerable time and who feels, as I suspect the new Prime Minister does, that this is a test for him. The situation is extremely dangerous.
	I have had many conversations in the past few days with diplomats of a number of countries in the region. It is clear to me that there is a perception that neither Hezbollah nor the Israeli Government wish to end the crisis immediately. Hezbollah wishes to pursue it because it is part of its realignment of its strength in Lebanon and in the interests of Syria and Iran, and the Israeli Government have a policy and believe at this moment that they may be able to eliminate Hezbollah as a threat to Israel. Both positions are extremely dangerous.
	As has been said, one cannot eliminate a terrorist organisation that is living in a community by air attacks or military action. There must be a combination of military, political, diplomatic and economic action, and it is time that we started thinking about the other ways to reduce Hezbollah's influence among the Shi'a communities of southern Lebanon.
	Several Members, including the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), referred to Hezbollah's global threat. Hezbollah has carried out terrorist actions not only in the middle east but elsewhere. Years ago, it attacked a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina. The Gulf states have been mentioned. There is deep concern in the Emirates and elsewhere in the Gulf about the potential threat that it poses to many other countries in the region.
	Before this crisis blew up, the Foreign Affairs Committee published a report on 2 July in which we highlighted, among other things, an international role played by the Iranians that is not helpful in several respects. We talked about their links to terrorist organisations and the way in which they could do more damage if the crisis over their nuclear programme deteriorates further. We are on the cusp of a very serious international situation that requires cool heads and diplomacy. It also requires our Government, the European Union Governments and the G8 Governments to work with Governments in the Arab world. At this moment, the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are working desperately hard for diplomatic solutions. It is interesting that the statements made by Arab Governments in the region were very critical of Hezbollah and what it has done.

Khalid Mahmood: In agreeing with what my hon. Friend says, does he think that it would be positive for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to have a far greater role in trying to influence Syria and Iran, and Hezbollah and Hamas, to achieve a settlement so that we can put Israel back where it belongs and allow a peaceful settlement in the whole area?

Mike Gapes: That would be very helpful, but, sadly, as we have seen in Iraq, there are elements internationally within the Muslim world that are trying to create a conflict between the two sides.
	While we are all focusing on this immediate crisis, other things are happening in the world. At this very moment, the Union of Islamic Courts militia in Somalia is marching towards Baidoa, which is the base of the transitional Government in Somalia. The UIC militia is backed, militarily and in other ways, by Eritrea. The transitional Government are backed by Ethopia. The BBC World Service reported at lunchtime that Ethiopian troops have moved into Somali territory around that area. There are potential dangers there. Although the UIC is an unusually broad organisation, it contains elements, including the speaker of the Shura Council, who are on the international list of terrorist organisations and have links with al-Qaeda.
	Somalia is on the other side of Saudi Arabia from the area that we are discussing. Nevertheless, there are several conflicts in the region, with Muslim-on-Muslim violence, Shi'a against Sunni violence, as in Iraq, and, on top of that, the ongoing, long-standing struggle of the Palestinian people for their own state while Israelis feel that there is a threat to their very existence through organisations such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. We need cool heads and active engagement by the international community.
	That brings me to my final point. It seems that the United States Administration have at last decided to send the US Secretary of State to the region. It is at least a week too late, but if it happens this weekend, I hope that some influence, with the weight of the only global superpower, can be brought to bear on trying to solve and defuse this crisis. Last December, Condoleezza Rice played a positive role in the opening of the Rafah crossing. The Select Committee visited the region and Rafah. We saw the Italian-led carabinieri mission, with Romanian and Danish people policing the border between Rafah and Gaza that is so vital for the Palestinian people and their economy. Condoleezza Rice did a good job at that time. She has the ability and the political clout to play a big role now.
	I hope that the United States will not do what it did at the beginning of the Bush Administration. It should become actively engaged because we need not only a solution to the crisis in Lebanon, which is a humanitarian and political disaster, but a middle east solution, whereby we get back to the road map, with the two-state solution that so many of us want.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend has spoken strongly about the capacity of the United States to make a difference. Does he believe that the message, which appears to have been heard internationally from the United States, that Israel can act with impunity, is one element that creates some of the risks?

Mike Gapes: I am not sure that the Israeli Government would be restrained by people saying that they would not act with impunity. I do not believe that the American position is that Israel can act in any way that it wishes. I have seen the declaration from the G8, and the United States has signed up to several things that call for restraint. One could say that there are signals, but we all know that the US Administration contain different voices. The statement that the US ambassador, John Bolton, made to the United Nations was unhelpful. However, Condoleezza Rice will now visit the region.
	The House must maintain close scrutiny of the position. I welcome the debate this afternoon and I concur with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about the need for an extended period of questions or a statement on Tuesday. I hope that Parliament will be recalled if the situation deteriorates so that the House can discuss it in the next few weeks.

Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), with whom I worked closely when we both served on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. He, along with the Select Committee, is doing excellent work. I join him and others in welcoming this afternoon's debate and especially the Foreign Secretary's commitment.
	There are honestly and strongly held differences of opinion in the House about the reasons for the conflict and the nature of our response to it. Given everything else that the Foreign Secretary has on her plate, her willingness to meet a group of hon. Members the other day to discuss the matter and to be here this afternoon is welcome. I am sure that the House is grateful to her for that.
	Our television screens, newspapers and websites are full of the sickening images of carnage and destruction from the middle east, on a scale we hoped never to see again. We are now beginning to hear some of the personal accounts of the violence, destruction and fear in the region from the first of those mercifully evacuated in the past couple of days.
	Our immediate attention is understandably focused on the safety of British citizens and their families who are seeking to leave and those who judge that they need to stay. We all welcome the speedy evacuation of those British nationals so far and applaud the efforts of the Royal Navy, the rest of the armed forces and especially the diplomatic services for their tireless efforts in truly shocking and difficult conditions. We also welcome the information about the continued efforts to provide additional resources to them as they go about their difficult and dangerous work.
	Like others, I acknowledge that the situation is changing fast. I, too, hope that other means will be used to keep the House and the country informed about what happens in the days ahead.
	The tragic mess that British citizens and others wish to leave behind is getting worse by the day. Although our immediate focus is on the events in Lebanon, we must not forget what is happening in Gaza. I shall revert to that briefly later. The origins of the unfolding disaster in Lebanon are clear. The unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on Israeli territory and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers was the trigger, and should rightly be condemned. The return of those soldiers is essential to the prospects for peace.
	Israel has a moral and legal right to live in peace within recognised and secure borders, and a right to act in self-defence. Let us not forget that at least 29 Israelis, including 15 civilians, have been killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel, and that thousands now live in terror. But, as the shadow Foreign Secretary highlighted, the Lebanese Prime Minister has estimated that as many as 300 people have now been killed in his country, and about 500,000 have been displaced by the violence. They too live in terror.
	The scale and aggression of the Israeli military action is clearly disproportionate. It amounts to collective punishment and is therefore illegal under international law. Whatever the Israelis' objectives, their actions are destroying a country only recently rebuilt after decades of war. As others have said, they are undermining the fragile political state of Lebanon, and all but guaranteeing the radicalisation of swathes of people in the middle east and around the world. We need an urgent ceasefire and collective world action to prevent this crisis from spiralling into other parts of the region.

Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in attributing blame, it is right that he should blame Hezbollah for the way in which it is acting from Lebanese territory to destroy the citizens of another country, against United Nations resolutions? Will he not castigate the Lebanese Government for permitting that to happen, despite promises to the contrary?

Michael Moore: I am disappointed by the hon. Lady's question, because I thought that I had dealt robustly with the first of her points. On her second point, of course the Lebanese Government have responsibilities under United Nations Security Council resolution 1559. However, the Foreign Secretary has highlighted plenty of other United Nations resolutions that oblige the Israeli Government to take certain actions. Given the fragility of Lebanon, we are kidding ourselves if we think that every last requirement of resolution 1559 can be delivered without the due and proper political process that will now end up on the scrap heap unless we take concerted international action to help Lebanon to get back to where it was.

Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was talking about securing a ceasefire, and I can see that the Israeli Government might be persuaded to cease fire. But how are we to persuade Hezbollah to do so?

Michael Moore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. If I may, I will ask him to pay attention to some of the points that I shall make later. Clearly, this depends not only on Hezbollah listening to the international community's demands for a ceasefire but on others in the region, such as Syria and Iran, putting pressure on Hezbollah.

Evan Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Moore: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make some progress, as many other hon. Members rightly wish to contribute to the debate.
	Lest we forget, there is another bleak and desperate situation in Gaza. Today and on many other occasions, there will be long and angry debates about the origins of this part of the crisis. But in the short term, let us understand that Israel had a right to respond to the kidnapping of its soldier. It is estimated that, since 28 June, the Palestinians have fired more than 150 home-made rockets towards Israel. For their part, the Israelis have fired more than 600 artillery shells into Gaza, and the Israeli air force has conducted 168 aerial bombings on the territory. People there are also living in terror.
	One Israeli defence force soldier has been killed and 12 Israelis have been injured; 100 Palestinians, including 30 children have been killed, with 300 Palestinians injured. The bombing of Gaza's central power station has deprived some 750,000 Palestinians of electricity, with terrible consequences for essential sewage and water systems. Other vital infrastructure has been destroyed, causing thousands to flee their homes. UN programmes such as schools and clinics have been damaged or destroyed. It is estimated that as many as 80 per cent. of Palestinian households are living below the poverty line. Beyond that, Israel has abducted members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, including eight Ministers as well as other officials. Those and other detentions violate due process, are unlawful and should end.
	In sum, the scale of the Israeli actions in Gaza are again disproportionate and amount to collective punishment. The world must respond, and so far the international reaction has been utterly baffling and depressing. Let us be clear about one issue in that respect: whatever the roles of outside Governments such as those of Iran and Syria in fuelling the conflicts, they must end. We cannot risk the broadening of this conflict across the region, and we must not allow a proxy war in the middle east. Those countries outside the region who have influence over those Governments must make that absolutely plain.
	We must be absolutely clear that the first priority of the whole international community is to call for a ceasefire and to create the conditions in which it can be sustained. I do not understand the reluctance of the Government to describe Israel's actions in clear terms as disproportionate. What is impossible to fathom, however, is our nuanced attitude to a ceasefire. Our relationship with America is fundamental in that regard. Whether real or not, even the perception that the United States Government are willing to give a green light to Israeli military action for a few more days is deeply damaging. Of course, if it is for real, it is utterly deplorable. For us to go along with that would be a disgrace.

Susan Kramer: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister should address a phrase used by the Foreign Secretary, who essentially said that she did not wish to see the events in Lebanon and Gaza continue longer than is necessary. The term "necessary" should be explained, so that we understand what approval she is giving through its use.

Michael Moore: I am sure that the Minister has heard that point.

Margaret Beckett: What I meant was that I would not wish to see the events continue for a second longer. I advise the hon. Lady not to read anything more than that into my words.

Michael Moore: The Foreign Secretary has made her position abundantly clear.
	Unfortunately, the divisions in the international community have been rather too obvious. Some of them are tactical, and many are longer term and as deep-seated as the unresolved peace process itself. Regardless of those divisions, surely there is now an imperative to overcome them and recognise the simple truth that, without a ceasefire there can be no prospect for peace on whatever terms. If that can be achieved, an appropriate UN force ought to have the support of all of us. Surely that must now be the priority for the Security Council. If the Quartet as an institution is to maintain any credibility, all its partners must be engaged as one, including the European Union. European Union countries have long-standing commitments to the region, as the level of aid from the EU and trade with Israel and the Palestinians demonstrates. We should make it clear that Israel has obligations under the EU association agreement, which it must fulfil. A middle east further destabilised by this conflict, or worse, will surely undermine the very security and freedom from threat that Israelis properly crave. As part of the broader process, we need to persuade Israel of that.
	The broader peace process appears further away than ever, with the road map shredded and looking hard to repair, but we will have to make every effort in that regard. Ludicrous as the timetable in the original document now appears, it remains the main starting point. We will have to return to the need for Hamas to recognise the key principles—accepting Israel's right to exist, adherence to the principle of non-violence, compliance with previous peace treaties and commitment to the road map. As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out earlier, we need to highlight the fact that the construction of the barrier in Israel is a manifest violation of international law, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice. There must be a halt to ongoing settlement expansion on occupied territory, and illegal outposts need to be dismantled. There are many other legitimate, long-standing issues, which, I hope, can be addressed as soon as possible. I hope that Israel, as well as others, will observe all United Nations resolutions in full.
	There are issues to be considered beyond the immediate crisis. As others have said, the situation in Iraq can clearly only be complicated by what is going on. Others have also mentioned the delicate situation in relation to the Iranian nuclear plans.
	The Leader of the House said yesterday that the debate would be widely drawn, but there is a clear reason for it. Obviously many Members want to speak about what is happening in the middle east, but, in keeping with the spirit of what the Leader of the House said about revisiting the allocation of time for foreign affairs debates, may I ask for a debate to be scheduled soon after our return in October? Our eyes may be diverted at present, although we must pray that that is temporary; but the turning of our attention to Iraq and Iran is long overdue. As the Foreign Secretary's final remarks about Doha and Darfur made clear, there is much else to debate.
	While we debate, people continue to die or flee for their lives in the middle east. There must be a ceasefire: that is urgent. The soldiers must be returned, and a new peace must be kept. In all that, the international community has been making different efforts but remains divided. Those divisions must end if there is to be hope for the swift establishment of peace.

Clare Short: I think we would all agree that all human beings should deplore the killing, injuries and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, Lebanon and Israel. Leaders on all sides should note the warning from Louise Arbour, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, who has a distinguished record as a judge in Canada and as an international prosecutor. She warned yesterday that the scale of the killing in Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories could involve war crimes. Hers is an authoritative voice, not to be swept aside. She made it clear that the obligation to protect civilians during hostilities was laid down in international criminal law, and concluded:
	"The scale of the killings in the region and their predictability could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."
	That would of course include the leadership of Hezbollah, but it would also include the Government of Israel.
	I had the honour of working with Louise Arbour when she was an international prosecutor, trying to ensure that there was no impunity for those who had caused the genocide in Rwanda. She is a very considerable woman, and her analyses should be taken very seriously. I would love to think that leaders on all sides would be held accountable by the international community in the way that she suggests, and that if they were, the use of excessive force would be restrained; but we know from the record of the international community that that will not happen.
	Israel has been in breach of UN resolutions for many years. It has also breached international law in building settlements in the Palestinian territories, in building the wall—not on the 1967 boundary, but taking in a large amount of Palestinian land—in carrying out targeted killings, in kidnapping Palestinians including members of the Government and holding them without trial, and in killing large numbers of Palestinian civilians. We should deplore the killing of any civilian—indeed, the killing of any person—but the number of Palestinian deaths is much greater than the number of Israeli deaths, and the number of Lebanese deaths is much greater than the number of Israeli deaths.
	The way in which we talk suggests that we are saying that an Arab life is not as important as an Israeli life. That is profoundly wrong, but it is the balance of the discourse far too often, and it is the cause of the rage of the Arab and Muslim world. I also have no doubt that the massive killing of innocent Lebanese civilians and the destruction of infrastructure is so disproportionate that it too is a war crime, as was implied by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore).
	What is the position of our Government? Does it follow the analysis of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? It does not; it follows what is called for by the United States in always backing up Israeli Government policy. The US denounces Hezbollah and Hamas and supports Israel's right to defend itself in this way, and it blames Iran and Syria for Hezbollah's actions, thus spreading the fear of a widening military action and encouraging the use of irregular forces throughout this very dangerous region.
	In my view, our Government's policy is so unbalanced and so disrespectful of international law and of the equal human rights of all people in the region that it inflames the situation, inciting large numbers of angry young Arabs and Muslims to the conclusion that there is no political route to justice. We know from history that where that view prevails, there is an increase in support for the use of violence by irregular forces. In my view, UK policy is not just unbalanced and morally wrong, but totally counter-productive and likely to increase the problem of terrorism, even though it is supposed to be a central feature of our foreign policy to try to constrain that threat.
	There is, however, one point that the Prime Minister keeps making with which I agree. As soon as a ceasefire can be agreed to end the violence in Lebanon—it should be called for unequivocally and immediately, and Israel should not be allowed all this time to continue; it has obviously been licensed by the US Administration—it is essential to turn attention to the core problem that destabilises the middle east, which is the unbearable suffering, oppression and impoverishment of the Palestinian people.
	The answer to that problem is a two-state solution based on 1967 boundaries, with east Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. That proposal—accepted by the Palestine Liberation Organisation at Oslo and outlined in the road map, to which the Prime Minister constantly refers—is a solution favoured by the majority of Israeli and Palestinian people. Let us be clear about that; it is undoubtedly the way forward. It is perfectly clear from all the evidence and all the facts on the ground that Israel does not accept the right of the Palestinian people to a state based on the 1967 boundaries with east Jerusalem as its capital. The road map and the chance of a two-state solution is evaporating before our very eyes. The Prime Minister constantly refers to the road map, but does nothing to bolster it.
	Israel's wall—not based on the 1967 boundaries, but taking in large swathes of Palestinian land—has been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice, but nothing has been done about it. Israel's massive settlements in the occupied territories are illegal in international law. If we also take into account the network of roads, the constant destruction of Palestinian houses, the domination of water resources and the containment of Palestinians, preventing them from travelling across their territory or trading with the outside world, it is quite clear that the terrible impoverishment and constant humiliation of the Palestinian people has been systematically put in place so that Israel can impose a unilateral settlement, as former Prime Minister Sharon and now Prime Minister Olmert acknowledge. Israel wants the maximum territory with the minimum of Palestinian people within it.

Louise Ellman: My right hon. Friend holds Israel solely to blame for the failure to reach a solution on the setting up of a Palestinian state. Does she agree with the views of Saeb Erekat and former President Clinton, who laid the blame fairly and squarely at Yasser Arafat's stall for rejecting a proposal that would have led to a Palestinian state, living at peace with Israel?

Clare Short: No, I do not, and I very much regret the fact that my hon. Friend is so absolutely unbalanced in her attitude to these matters. I do not believe either that her comments are helpful to the people of Israel, whom she seeks to defend and protect.
	Israel's dilemma—and this is the view of many serious scholars and commentators, but it is not said often in the House—is that it wants the maximum territory, way beyond the 1967 boundaries, as is clear from all its actions, with the minimum of Palestinians. It has now become clear that the issue is to be resolved by confining the Palestinians to a series of Bantustans, exactly as the apartheid regime in South Africa attempted to do. The plan is for a second ugly, legally and morally wrong, apartheid settlement. It is clear that President Bush has given the green light and it follows, of course, that our Prime Minister—whatever he says about the evaporating road map—will follow wherever President Bush goes and whatever the error of the US Administration's ways. I am afraid that that will ensure continuing violence, destabilisation of the middle east and recruitment of ever-growing numbers to the use of violence for decades to come. The irony of that is that it is likely to lead in the end, no matter how long it takes, to the demise of the Jewish state as, just as with apartheid, more and more people support the call for the establishment of a secular Palestinian state—because that is the logical answer if we cannot have two states—where Jews, Arabs, Christians and all others can live together as equal citizens. We are, I am afraid, heading for further violence and catastrophe, and I am sad to say that our Government are following President Bush's errors and pouring petrol on the flames.

Michael Ancram: It is difficult to speak in a debate like this without feeling a sense of sadness and despair. Here we are, talking about Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese dying. I came to this House just after the Yom Kippur war in 1974 and we were talking about exactly the same thing then. It is difficult sometimes not to despair that the problem is intractable. I have never believed that and I hope that the House does not make the same mistake.
	I thought that the speeches by the Front Benchers were comprehensive and well balanced. The one by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary was also more realistic, in that he accepted that some of what is happening is disproportionate. It is important that we are realistic in how we address this problem.
	I speak on this subject as a friend of Israel of very long standing and a friend of Palestine. When people say to me that I cannot be both, I say that if one believes in the two-state solution, one has to be both. We have to be able to say that we are not standing on the sidelines shouting abuse at one side or the other, as we so often do in this House, but that we want to be part of the solution and that, therefore, we are going to take an even-handed approach.
	I will discuss why I believe Israel's reaction to terrorism is justified, but when I consider the conflict and what is happening today I am also reminded that in all the conflicts in history military action has never resolved them. Military action has often helped to contain them, but in the end they have been resolved only by dialogue and negotiation. When we talk about the short term, it is no substitute in the middle east for returning to the negotiation without which there will be no immediate answer.
	I believe that the two-state solution is a workable outcome. I listened to what was said at Camp David and I read what was said at Taba. I have heard what has been said since then in response to the road map and the indications suggest it is possible to achieve a solution on the two-state basis. But that will happen only if there is mutual confidence on both sides of the argument—a belief in Israel that they can live secure from terror and attack within their own boundaries and a belief among the Palestinians that theirs will not be an oppressed and vassal state, but a real and viable state that can live properly alongside Israel. Without such confidence, the two-state solution will simply not come about.
	I turn to the present situation. I have no doubt about Israel's right to pursue terrorists who carry out acts of violence against it, whether from Gaza or by Hezbollah from Lebanon. In the current context there can be no doubt that the action of Hezbollah, which is an exclusively external terrorist organisation, was responsible for the beginning of this crisis and continues to light its fires. But Israel does not only have the right to pursue terrorists in order to protect its people. If a two-state solution is to be reached, Israelis must be confident that they will not find hostile states on their borders firing at will into Israel. Unless the Israeli Government of Ehud Olmert can show that withdrawal from the territories from which withdrawal must be made does not mean greater vulnerability, and that the terrorist challenge can be met, the two-state solution will be stillborn.
	I do not question the action that Israel is taking against Hamas and Hezbollah. I do not gainsay Israel's right to take proportionate action. But I am concerned and dismayed by what appears, to me at least, to be disproportionate action in Lebanon. Given modern intelligence and military technology, it must be possible to pursue terrorists on a surgical basis, knowing where the terrorist problem is and then rooting it out. We had to do that in our time in our own terrorist context; we did not blast communities on the basis that there might be terrorists there. It is absolutely essential that we say to our friends in Israel, who, after all, have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, that they, of all people, should be able to deal with this terrorist problem without creating a wider problem for those around them.
	Nor, in my view, is destroying Lebanon's infrastructure acceptable. Not only Lebanon but Israel and the rest of the world need a stable Lebanon in the future. A ruined, impotent and bankrupt Lebanon is not only a cause of despair to the people of Lebanon themselves; it becomes a danger to the region, and beyond. If what is happening now creates a failed state of Lebanon, it will be antagonistic to Israel and distrustful of its wider friends, who did not help it in its time of need. It will be a breeding ground for future anti-Israeli sentiment and for anti-American resentment, and it will, of necessity, be the ground from which the next generation of terrorists will be born.
	That is why the onslaught on Lebanon must now cease. I am happy to see precision attacks on the terrorists continue and I wish them well, because the right exists to root out that terrorism. But I have to say that I doubt whether an international stability force is a workable suggestion. Stability forces in conflict zones do not have a great record throughout history and we, on our side, should be very careful about claiming to support such a force when our own forces are so stretched between Iraq and Afghanistan that it is highly unlikely that we could even take part in it ourselves. We must therefore concentrate on those areas where we can at least be constructive.
	I want the level of violence to be decreased. I hope that we can persuade the Government of Israel that the time has come to scale down—

Brooks Newmark: I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that since 12 July, 1,600 missiles have rained down on northern Israel—100 have done so in the past 24 hours alone—and that 1 million Israeli citizens are threatened. In addition to the UK and the US putting pressure on Israel, as he suggests, what pressure does he think could be put on Syria and Iran?

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, and I am just coming to the question of Syria. At the moment, it would be very difficult to persuade Iran to take a view different from the one that they are currently taking. But I have always believed that, through diplomatic pressure, Syria is open to changing the direction that it has been taking—wrongly, in my view—for so long. We can show the Syrians that there is a better future for them—if they change their ways and go down another path. That is something that the British Government should be doing.
	The middle east is a vicious circle, and that circle will not be broken in the flames of war; it can be dismantled only by a return to dialogue and negotiation. We should help to facilitate that, using the vast number of contacts that we have in Israel, Palestine and the rest of that region to get the dialogue going again. Building bridges is what we should all be about now—not destroying bridges, as we have seen happening over the past few days.

James Arbuthnot: Is not the problem that the attacks by Hamas in Gaza, and by Hezbollah in Lebanon, were intended precisely to disrupt that negotiation and dialogue?

Michael Ancram: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I say to him that we ourselves had experience of this in these lands. We can pursue the terrorists individually, accurately and surgically, rather than with the blunt weapons that are being used in the middle east region. That is what we should be doing, to make sure that the terrorists do not succeed in disrupting the negotiations and dialogue that my right hon. Friend and I believe are necessary.
	Before I sit down—

Andrew Love: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall give way once more.

Andrew Love: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept that the one issue that we still need to resolve is the outstanding dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Shabba farms? Until we resolve that, relations will not improve to the extent that we want.

Michael Ancram: Right across the region, there are an enormous number of detailed problems that have to be resolved. They can be resolved only by negotiation, and not by military action, and that is why I am so intent on trying to get back to a position—however long it takes—where we can begin using words rather than bullets to achieve our purpose.
	I want to mention briefly two other areas of crisis that affect us and which deserve to be raised today, given that we are not going to be here in this House for three months. The first is Iraq. For the past six months, I have been calling for our troops to be brought home. I know that it will not make me especially popular in the House, but I do so again today. I am full of admiration for what they have achieved, in the most difficult circumstances, over the past three years, but the situation is deteriorating and I am no longer sure what we can achieve by staying on.

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Michael Ancram: I shall not give way, as I would not get extra time for doing so.

John Bercow: Splendidly unselfish!

Julian Lewis: Such candour!

Michael Ancram: When I say that our troops should return from Iraq, I am told that we would leave chaos behind us. That is a real fear, but I am worried that the deterioration of the situation means that the same case might be made in a year's time, or three years' time. The present difficulties now demand that we rethink our role in Iraq, and I hope that our troops will be brought home.
	I take a totally different view, however, about the equally difficult circumstances that obtain in Afghanistan. If we were to leave that country, we would leave not only chaos but the virtual certainty that a Taliban state would be restored. Such a state—once again and as its fundamentalist philosophy dictates—would allow itself to become a base for international Islamist terrorism. As we know, that would pose a direct threat to Britain, Europe, the US and all western nations.
	I am concerned that we face very difficult circumstances in Afghanistan because our mission there is not clear enough and because the resources provided to it are not yet sufficient. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully over the summer what is needed to make sure that our mission there succeeds.
	Our role in international affairs must not be based on romantic dreams of curing the world, nor on an unquestioning acceptance of US policy, but on realism and on what is in the British national interest. From what I have heard today, I cannot be certain that that is necessarily the Government's position. I hope that, over the summer, they will make sure that it is their position by the autumn.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a significant number of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye in this debate, in accordance with the order of the House of 26 October 2004 on shorter speeches, it has been decided that, between 5 o'clock and 5.30 pm, a time limit of three minutes will apply. I remind the House that, in the period of shorter speeches, no added time is allowed for interventions.

Gerald Kaufman: Let us set aside the morality of the situation—the wanton slaughter of hundreds of innocent Lebanese and the destruction of their infrastructure, the havoc caused by the Israeli army in Gaza and the kidnapping of half of the Palestinian Government, the murder of innocent Israelis and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Let us accept as a given that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations, and that the Israeli Government are dominated by right-wing thugs—unfortunately now augmented by the former peacenik leader of the Labour party who is in charge of the attacks on Lebanon.
	Let us look instead at the undeniable facts. This is Israel's fourth invasion of Lebanon, and none of the three previous invasions has been successful. The 1978 invasion was called Operation Peace in Galilee: is Galilee at peace today? The commander, Rafael Eitan, described the Litani Operation by saying, "We come, we kill, we go." It did not achieve its objective. In 1982 I was with Israeli troops after they had invaded Lebanon. It was the first time that I had ever seen Israeli soldiers who were scared of the enemy—and I have been with Israeli soldiers from 1967 onwards. That war caused Sharon's resignation and Begin's resignation. It did not work, and this war will not work either. Already, Israeli troops are taking serious casualties on the ground and their commanders are warning that they cannot go on in this way.
	Israel's invasion of Lebanon is not simply immoral; it is futile. At the same time, Israel is facing an existential threat. A once-proud nation of pioneers and warriors who proclaimed that Jews would never again be confined in ghettos is now building an illegal wall behind which its people are cowering in a Jewish Israeli-made do-it-yourself ghetto. That is what is happening to Israel now.
	Within a measurable period, Palestinians will outnumber Israelis. Unless there is a two-state solution, with two countries—one for the Palestinians—the Palestinians will be penned into Bantustans directly adjacent to affluent illegal Jewish settlements. As in South Africa, this will become unviable for the Israeli state and the whole future of Israel as a viable state will be thrown into doubt. The only way of saving Israel—do not let us talk about the Palestinian interests, although I have championed them for many years—is a two-state solution.
	Hezbollah and Hamas set out to cause chaos. That is what they are about, and they are achieving it. The Israeli Government and the United States Government are obliging Hamas and Hezbollah in the way they are approaching the situation. They are playing with fire. If Syria and Iran are drawn into the conflict, global repercussions will burgeon out of control, with an incalculable economic impact for the whole of the western developed world far worse than the oil shock of 1973, which, among other things, brought down the Heath Government.
	Remember what happened to Jimmy Carter. He was brought down by Iran as President of the United States. Remember, too, that western meddling in the middle east ends again and again in tears. We are just commemorating the 50th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Suez by Britain and France in collusion with Israel.
	There is a story of a scorpion approaching a frog on the banks of the River Jordan. The scorpion says to the frog, "Will you give me a ride on your back across the river?" The frog says, "Don't be foolish, you will sting me and I will die." The scorpion says to the frog, "Don't you be foolish. If I sting you I will drown. That goes against all kinds of sense." So the frog says to the scorpion, "Get on my back." Half way across the river the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, "What have you done? Now I will die and you will drown." The scorpion says, "This is the middle east." What we are seeing is futility on all sides in this conflict.
	Those of us like me who have championed the state of Israel from before its foundation are filled with tears and shame at what an Israeli Government are doing to the Jewish people of Israel.
	I have championed a Palestinian state since my first meetings with Yasser Arafat in Tunis. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that Arafat made a profound error in rejecting the Barak offer at Camp David, but there is no point in repining. There is no point in saying that things should have been done differently. When I first visited Syria, I had a meeting with the vice-president in which he spent 40 minutes talking about the iniquities of the Zionists since the Balfour declaration. When he had finished, I said, "Yes, let's take all that for granted, but that was then. What about today and what about tomorrow?"
	Our British Government have a role to play in trying to drill sense into the Israeli Government and in trying to explain to the Palestinian people that their best interests are not those championed by Hamas. But let us be clear: America invaded Iraq—so we are told—to bring democracy to the middle east, to get genuine elections. The Palestinians held a genuine election, so are we saying that the only acceptable genuine elections in the middle east are those whose result is acceptable to George W. Bush? If so, there will be few successful acceptable democratic elections in the middle east.
	I am more pessimistic about this situation than I have been in more than 40 years of involvement in the middle east. I do not believe that it helps the Israelis to give them a free hand. The duty of my right hon. Friends in the British Government, whom I have constantly supported and will continue to support, is to make it clear to the Israelis and to the Palestinians that compromise is essential. That is what I told Arafat when I first met him and I said it to him again and again.
	Letting the Israeli dogs of war loose on Lebanon will solve nothing. It will undermine the existence of the state of Israel, it will kill more and more Israelis and the poor Palestinians at the bottom will continue to suffer. I look to our Government to try to do something to help us out of that mess.

Dai Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I shall take up as little time as I possibly can, because many Members want to speak.
	I want to put on record my sincere thanks to the Speaker's Office and all the House staff for their help and support over the past three weeks; their fairness and dedication is to be commended. I offer special thanks to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) for his support and friendship since I arrived in the House. I would apologise for the confusion caused by another David Davies entering the House, but we solved it amicably.
	It is a great honour and privilege for me to represent the people of Blaenau Gwent at the highest level of politics, but it is also a humbling experience when I think about the hopes and expectations of my constituency for its future. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to my predecessor, Peter Law, a friend and a great political servant to Blaenau Gwent for more than 30 years. He followed the tradition in our area of producing people who were prepared to speak out for fairness and justice for all.
	From the days of the Chartist riots, and through books such as "Rape of the Fair Country" and "The Citadel", it can be seen that the south Wales valleys have played a significant part in the present structure of British politics and the way in which our communities are represented. Blaenau Gwent has proven that we take the people who elect us for granted at our peril. We must respect and care for our communities at all times and ensure that at all levels of government we give value for money. Do we believe that at this moment in time the general public would support a move to use taxpayers' money to finance political elections?
	We must never be afraid to talk and listen to the people we represent and to encourage them to take a full and active part in politics and the democratic representative process. We should not be considering ways to force people to vote. Instead, we should seek to find out why more and more people are becoming disillusioned with the political process. If we are honest with ourselves, we already know the answer. We must strengthen the citizenship agenda for schools to encourage more young people to talk about politics and learn the art of debate. Visits to this House would be an inspiration to them all.
	The problems and social needs of my constituency are not unique and have been the same for some years. Employment, health, education and community safety are at the top of the list, as I am sure they are across many areas of the country. We are all here for the same reason: to improve the standard of living and life chances of the people we represent. I have been a shop steward all my working life, giving a voice to those who needed help and support, and that is the role that I will play for the people of Blaenau Gwent. I believe that, as long as I carry out my duty with honesty, integrity, openness and accountability, I will continue to have their support.
	The south Wales valleys have played a significant part in the social and economic development of this country from the industrial revolution to the present day, and the people of Blaenau Gwent want to continue to play their part in developing a strong and vibrant economy for future generations. One of the greatest opportunities for my constituency is the development of an integrated tourist industry across Blaenau Gwent and neighbouring areas. I am sure that the significant numbers of visitors who came to our area during the by-election, increasing our tourist trade considerably, would agree that we have an industrial history and a medical history that is second to none, and some of the most beautiful valley countryside in Britain. I hope that all Members would support us in establishing an attraction that would bring visitors from all over the world and provide much-needed employment for our area.
	This afternoon's debate on international affairs should take into account the role that our individual communities can play in this very important issue—primarily through education and the sharing of information. The involvement of our young people is important in considering international affairs. I had planned to make my maiden speech during the debate to establish a commissioner for older people in Wales, because over the past two months I have aged considerably and will probably have need of their help sooner rather than later. The intergenerational working in our communities is vital to any respect agenda. We are never too old or too young to learn from each other. Wales can lead the way with a commissioner for older people, working alongside the already appointed commissioner for young people. The investment in young people in terms of meaningful training and practical skills, as well as academic courses— perhaps with training involving a mixture of ages and of experience—is vital in creating real and lasting job opportunities and increased earning potential. We must ensure that areas of the country that receive European funding, and have a Community First process in place, maximise its potential for the benefit of our people.
	The people of Blaenau Gwent have suffered the loss of coal and steel industries in recent years, but, as we have shown over the past two months, we are people who care for our community. We had no party machine, only individuals who wanted their voices heard and I would respectfully request that those who believe that our by-election result was just an insignificant protest should think again and heed the result—do not ignore it.
	I will do everything that I can to deliver the hopes, wishes and aspirations of the people in my constituency by following my principles of socialism, trade unionism, co-operation and family and Christian values. To add to the debate this afternoon, there was a phrase used many years ago—jaw-jaw not war-war. From what we have heard today, that is the way forward. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank all hon. Members for their patience.

Iain Wright: May I begin by paying tribute to the fine maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies)? I, too, came to the House via a contentious by-election. It is two years to the week since Peter Mandelson resigned the Hartlepool seat—my life has never been the same since. The hon. Gentleman made a fine and spirited maiden speech and I wish him well during his time in the House. I also wish to pay tribute to the balanced statements that were made to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East on Monday and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and to the balanced speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in this debate.
	The British Government are gravely concerned, as we all are, about the escalating crisis and the threat that it poses to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, to the wider middle east region and to British citizens in the region. The civilian casualties in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon are absolutely horrific. It is imperative that hostilities and violence from both sides end immediately to avoid the risk of losing further innocent lives.
	The origins of the crisis are clear. The G8, following last week's summit in St. Petersburg, stated:
	"The immediate crisis results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace. In Gaza, elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and abducted an Israeli soldier. In Lebanon, Hizbollah, in violation of the Blue Line, attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli soldiers, reversing the positive trends that began with the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, and undermining the democratically elected government of Prime Minister...Siniora...These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks."
	That analysis is also shared by Arab nations. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has used extraordinarily frank language to denounce the attacks. Its official news agency, SPA—the Saudi Press Agency—stated last week:
	"A distinction must be made between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventures undertaken by elements inside"—
	Lebanon—
	"and those behind them without recourse to the legal authorities and consulting and coordinating with Arab nations...These elements should bear the responsibility for their irresponsible actions and they alone should end the crisis they have created."
	It said that the terrorist elements
	"are exposing Arab nations and their gains to grave dangers without these nations having a say in the matter".
	The analysis and conclusions of the G8 and Saudi Arabia are absolutely correct. Since fighting began a matter of days ago, 1,600 Hezbollah rocket attacks have rained down on northern Israel. Some 29 Israelis have died in the past 10 days, including 15 civilians in rocket attacks. A million Israelis are permanently in bunkers and shelters, unable to work or go about their business. To be frank, it is surprising that the death count in Israel has not been a lot higher.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman balance his comments by accepting that 280 Lebanese have died, most of whom were civilian? The Israel defence forces have fired 654 artillery shells during this period and conducted 81 air strikes.

Iain Wright: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come to the question of proportionality shortly.
	Hezbollah fires rockets without specific targeting, regardless of whether they might hit civilians. Its aim is to kill as many people as possible. The delivery systems for the rockets are crude and largely inaccurate. I understand that a Hezbollah rocket actually hit Syria on Tuesday night, so ineffectual is the targeting capability.
	Many people, including the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), have mentioned the need for proportionality in Israel's response to the terrorist attacks. I absolutely agree about the need for proportionality, but is Israel meant to wait until Hezbollah improves the guidance systems on the rockets so that the death toll becomes much higher? There is criticism that Israel is wiping out the infrastructure of Lebanon and I will expand on that later on, if I may.

Ann McKechin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attack on the Lebanese barracks that resulted in the death of 11 soldiers was disproportionate? Would that not justify the Lebanese Government defending themselves, if they saw fit, by attacking Israel?

Iain Wright: I will come to attacks by Lebanon into Israel shortly. We should all recognise that Hezbollah is also trying to wreck Israel's infrastructure—it is just that the means of achieving that effectively have not yet been reached.
	Not all the rockets that have been used are Katyushas, which have been the missiles of choice for Hezbollah in recent years. Katyushas generally have a range of 20 km. If they are fired from southern Lebanon, they are able to hit northern Israeli towns, albeit with somewhat little precision. However, the past few days have seen rockets fired deeper and deeper into Israel. Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, has come under intense fire, and it has suffered some of the worst attacks in the current crisis. On Sunday morning, for example, Syrian-produced Fajr missiles hit Haifa, killing eight maintenance workers at a train depot and injuring 53 others. This week, Israel claims to have destroyed an Iranian-made missile—the Zelzal— which has a range of about 200 km. Those are ominous developments. Terrorist groups, backed by neighbouring states that have pledged to obliterate Israel and wipe it off the face of the earth, appear to be close to having weapons that threaten the security of most of Israel, including Tel Aviv, its major financial centre.
	I accept that Israel is bombing Lebanon, and let me make it clear that I want that to stop. However, the House must recognise that it would stop immediately if Hezbollah released the kidnapped soldiers and stopped the rocket attacks. That must be recognised in any discussion about proportionality.

Andrew Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Iain Wright: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to press on, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
	It has been a fast-moving and dramatic year. There have been genuine prospects for peace in the middle east since the Israeli elections; indeed, I secured an Adjournment debate on that subject a few weeks ago. Despite the election of Hamas, there were encouraging signs that a two-state solution was moving closer. Mahmoud Abbas remained as Palestinian President and attempted to implement a civilising and moderate policy for the Palestinians. At the end of May, for example, he proposed an 18-point peace plan based on positions agreed by Palestinians in Israeli jails. That plan implicitly recognised Israel and supported the establishment of a Palestinian state in territory occupied by Israel in 1967. Abbas was prepared to put that 18-point plan to the Palestinian people in a referendum, and Hamas signed it at the end of May.
	Let us be clear that the document is not a miraculous panacea for either side. Although there is implicit recognition of Israel, it is arguably so implicit as to be almost imperceptible. That point was stressed by two of the signatories, Abdel Kheleq Natsche from Hamas, and Bassam al-Sa'adi from Islamic Jihad, who declared:
	"We scorn the attempts to attach non-existent content to the document and therefore we emphasise that it does not contain any declaration or hint of recognition of the occupation state and does not contain any call for this".
	In other ways, the document falls short of what the UK and other members of the international community want—an end to terrorism and a commitment to honouring existing international agreements. Although it is far from perfect, in terms of perception it represents a significant and symbolic move towards an acceptance, albeit implicit rather than explicit, of a peaceful two-state solution based on bilateral negotiation and future co-operation.

Barbara Keeley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Iain Wright: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to press on.
	In a meeting in the House only last month, the Israeli Prime Minister told hon. Members that he would pursue diplomatic negotiations and aimed to begin negotiation with President Abbas before embarking on his plans for withdrawal from the west bank. From a wider perspective, in April this year President Bush welcomed Prime Minister Siniora to the White House and proclaimed that Lebanon
	"can serve as a great example of what is possible in the broader Middle East".
	Those small steps towards peace and wider regional stability and prosperity were not in the interests of terrorist organisations, which thrive on chaos and fear. Their power derives from derailing negotiations and causing turbulence and violence.
	I have no doubt that Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldier in a deliberate attempt to stop any progress in the peace process, and to escalate violence and so increase and consolidate its power. In so doing, it has taken the world's attention away from Iran's attempts to secure nuclear weapons—a prospect that would have immensely harmful repercussions for the stability of the wider regional and global theatres. We cannot conclude that Iran directly ordered the attacks and kidnappings against Israeli targets—that would be a crude assessment—but there is a strong and co-ordinated web of influence between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and that relationship has been nurtured over the past few decades.
	Hezbollah was created by the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, and since then it has received training and weaponry and technical expertise from Tehran. Iran is Hezbollah's main sponsor, donating an average of $100 million to $200 million a year. As was said earlier, Hezbollah has deliberately entwined itself into civilian life in Lebanon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) pointed out, missiles and military equipment are stored in densely populated areas.
	That is the context of the current crisis. Israel has a wish—a legitimate one, in my opinion—to try to destroy Hezbollah's military capability to minimise the risks to its citizens and to mitigate, as much as possible, the existential threat to itself. Israel also has a right, which I do not think anybody in the House or elsewhere could dispute, to defend its borders. However, that task is made immeasurably more difficult by the deliberate intention of Hezbollah to intertwine its military capability into civilian life in Lebanon. This tactic is cowardly, but I urge restraint on Israel.
	The loss of life, the injury and the impact upon the basic humanitarian situation in Lebanon have been truly horrendous. Israel must show restraint and try to ensure that its legitimate aim of destroying the military wing of Hezbollah does not coincide with or cause the destruction of the infrastructure of normal Lebanese life. Such a move would help breed even more of a culture of hatred and disaffection in the region, and would result in the evaporation of support from actors such as the G8 and Saudi Arabia.
	Diplomatic pressure for a ceasefire and thereafter a negotiated two-state structure are the only solutions, both in the short term and taking a longer perspective. I fully support the Government in their stance on the matter and their ability to try and get all parties to the negotiating table, but I accept that influence on Hezbollah is limited. The world must be firm that any of those short green shoots of peace which we have seen in recent months in the region are not trampled upon and destroyed for ever by extremist and aggressive states and terrorist organisations.

James Arbuthnot: I shall do my best to keep to three minutes. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) said and I do not wish to repeat it. I thought it was a fine speech.
	I declare my interest. I am the chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. This will not be a balanced speech because I do not think I should take the time to balance it as I would otherwise like. When hostages are taken and still held, I find it difficult to be balanced. The Foreign Secretary was absolutely right in saying that the crisis could be brought speedily to an end by the hostages being released and by the firing of the rockets being stopped.
	I shall make four points. First, some people say that the occupation by the Israelis is the problem. Well, if that were the case, when Israel withdrew from Gaza they could have expected some benefit from it, but instead what they got was a rain of rockets coming out of Gaza. That withdrawal from Gaza was heavily objected to by many people in Israel, and now the reaction in Israel by the opponents of withdrawal from Gaza is, "Look, we were right. We should never have withdrawn from Gaza in the first place." We do not want to send the wrong message to Israel by allowing rockets to continue to rain down on Israel from the areas that it releases.
	Secondly, people are calling on Israel to be proportionate and restrained. Yes, of course it must be proportionate and restrained, but what do we expect the Israelis to do? Do we expect them to leave open the route to restock Hezbollah's rockets? Do we expect them to negotiate with kidnappers and thus to create more kidnappers? Do we expect them to let out of jail the people who have been murdering their neighbours? We call on Israel to show restraint, of course, but Israel over many years has been showing restraint in the face of those rockets. A couple of weeks ago I was in Kandahar and had to spend two hours in a concrete air raid shelter because of the fear of rockets coming in from the Taliban. To be honest, it turned out to be almost a bit of a game. But in Israel it is happening night after night, and the Israelis could see that going on time after time and never stopping.
	Thirdly, the Iranians are talking about their nuclear weapons. We cannot just ignore what the Iranian President says about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map. We cannot pretend from our western perspective that he never said it or that he was joking. I believe that he meant it. The way that he is working, through Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah, is something of which we need to be very scared.
	My final point echoes a comment by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore). It is worrying that 80 per cent. of Palestinians are living below the poverty line. In the long term, the only solution to the problem is dramatically to regenerate the economies of Palestine and Lebanon. One can of course argue that that will not be achieved by destroying all the infrastructure. Equally, however, it will not be achieved if the security situation there is such that they are free to launch rockets and to intimidate Israel, their democratic, rule-of-law neighbour.
	I will not have changed many minds, but at least I have been brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The three-minute limit will apply to the next 10 speeches.

Phyllis Starkey: I, too, will not be balanced because of the limited time available.
	I absolutely accept that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are acting in good faith. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary cannot be here to hear that. However, I profoundly disagree with their judgment on this issue. I do not feel that the Prime Minister's responses to questions yesterday and following the G8 summit demonstrated an even-handed approach, and many of my constituents have contacted me to say the same. That particularly applies to the issue of proportionality by the Israelis. It is meaningless for the Government to keep saying that they call on the Israelis to exercise restraint and ask them to be proportionate and to act within international law, but then fail pointedly to answer the question of whether they think that the current action is proportionate or within international law.
	The blitzkrieg—there is no other way of describing it—that has been unleashed on Lebanon beggars belief. Merely talking about numbers of missiles on either side does not get across the inequity of the situation. Israel is the fourth largest military power in the world. Its missiles and weapons are of a different order of magnitude to the weapons ranged against it. That is not to excuse the people attacking the Israelis; I decry those attacks too. However, it is out of all proportion to launch that indiscriminate blitzkrieg on Lebanon against civilian targets, which has already resulted in 359 deaths, including 294 civilians, of whom a third were children. Some 1,000 people have been wounded and 500,000 displaced. Now that the foreign civilians have been evacuated, there is a fear that the bombing will increase still further. The Israeli defence force said today that it believes that it has got rid of half of Hezbollah's military capability. Does that mean that there are to be another 359 deaths and another 500,000 displaced before it has achieved its aims and stops what it is doing?
	If the Government are to have credibility, they must be seen to be even-handed and to uphold international law and say that the Israeli action is disproportionate. Many people in Israel are prepared to say that their Government are acting disproportionately, so why will not this Government do so?
	I should like to draw attention to the action in Palestine, where Gaza is under siege. The whole civilian population—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John Bercow.

John Bercow: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I endorse the gracious tribute that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) paid to the newly elected hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies), who made a passionate, decent and admirable speech of which he should be proud.
	Of course, there is terrible violence and an enormous crisis in the middle east, and that is the immediate pretext for today's debate. However, there are other crises elsewhere, and I would like to focus briefly on a couple of them.
	First, there is the running sore and international shame of what continues to take place in Darfur. So far, more than a third of a million people have lost their lives and 2 million people have been displaced—250,000 have been displaced in 2006 alone. The crisis has erupted over the border into Chad. Foot-stamping by the Sudanese Government has already prevented a vital deployment of troops by the United Nations to Darfur. It cannot be allowed, through procrastination, delay and objection, to prevent that necessary deployment again. I appeal to the Minister for the Middle East to advise the House today of what the Government are doing in response to the cri de coeur from the African Union, the aid agencies and others to press the matter, bring it before the United Nations Security Council and try to ensure that, sooner rather than later, there is a vote.
	Secondly, there is the long-running crisis—the slow-burn genocide, as I would characterise it—in Burma. Early-day motion 902 has attracted the signatures of 312 hon. Members who are united in calling for United Nations Security Council action. We need a resolution. We have support from European states and we enjoy the backing of the United States. We need the British Government and others to exert diplomatic muscle to exhort African states such as Ghana, Tanzania and Congo-Brazzaville to secure support for a discussion, with the consequence—I hope—of a resolution, binding or otherwise, to try to insist that the regime, which has an appalling human rights record, is brought to book.
	Those two important crises need to be tackled. There are many others but the United Nations must now decide what it is to be in future: a vehicle for necessary change in the world or simply an instrument of passive acceptance of an unsatisfactory status quo. Let it be the former, not the latter.

Richard Burden: When one becomes involved in issues such as those in the middle east and develops friendships there, it is easy to see the suffering of only one side. It is easy to rationalise the indefensible and dehumanise the other side. I hope that being aware of that will stop me ever rationalising or excusing rocket attacks, or saying that they are okay if they are provoked or—to use that ever-so-polite word—"proportionate". If I apply those sentiments to rocket attacks—I do without qualification—I also say that, when air strikes kill 300 people and displace 500,000, when 100 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in the past few weeks and when water and electricity supplies are cut to homes and hospitals in one of the poorest and most densely populated places on earth, people should not rationalise that or say that, somehow, it is okay.
	I never thought that Ministers in the Government whom I support, who rightly prefix everything that they say with a demand for an immediate and unconditional end to rocket attacks, would find it so difficult to call for an immediate ceasefire by both sides. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East that, unless the Government change their description of events, their credibility in the outside world will take a knock and the charge of double standards will have considerable force.
	The Prime Minister told us that we needed to examine the underlying causes and I agree with that. There is no time to consider most of them, so I shall mention only a couple. The Prime Minister singled out the kidnappings of Corporal Shalit in Gaza in a raid on 25 June and two soldiers in Lebanon on 12 July. He said that we must call for their immediate and unconditional release and I agree. However, if we say that, what about the families of the 741 Palestinian prisoners whom Israeli troops abducted and who are still held without trial in Israeli jails? Corporal Shalit is 19 years old; 282 of Palestinian prisoners are under 18. What do we say to Palestinians when the unjustifiable capture of one Israeli causes an international incident but that of Palestinians does not? Can we honestly say that there is no connection between that and the sense of hopelessness that breeds terrorism? There is a connection, and we ignore it at our peril.

Richard Younger-Ross: I should like to repeat the call for another urgent debate on international affairs. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned two other international issues, but there are also problems in Tibet, North Korea, Nigeria, the Caribbean and other places, and we need time to debate those issues as well as returning to the incidents in the middle east.
	I shall concentrate my brief comments today on the middle east. We all feel resentment when we are slighted. There are Back Benchers here who were once Ministers and who are still seething that they no longer hold that position. That anger can last for years and sometimes blight their lives. But what resentment must people feel when they see their land cut off by a wall so that they can no longer get to their stock? What resentment must people feel when they see their shops and premises destroyed by shellfire? What resentment must people feel as they stand and watch bulldozers moving over their homes? And what resentment must someone feel when the child in their arms dies as a result of an attack? To balance that, what resentment must an emergency worker in Israel feel when they have to clear up the wreckage and carnage caused by a suicide bomber on a bus?
	I do not expect a country to react to such circumstances in an emotional way. I expect a rational response. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was right to say that we in the House are friends of both Palestine and Israel. It is the duty of friends to say, "Hold on. We understand your anger. What is happening to you is wrong, but your response has to achieve an end. You have invaded Lebanon before, and it has not worked. Your reaction now might bring temporary respite, but it will make things worse in the long run. You are destroying the bridges and infrastructure that were improving the quality of people's lives and bringing economic success to the country, which would have done a lot to ameliorate that anger and resentment." I urge everyone to say clearly to Israel, "Cease. Stop. Pull back from what you are doing. Use surgical attacks if necessary; we understand that you have a right to self-defence. But what you are doing now is not going to help you in the long term."

Ann McKechin: I shall restrict my remarks to the humanitarian consequences of the conflict. As many speakers have mentioned today, more than a third of the victims are children. They are the voiceless ones in this tragedy, and I hope that we will all remember them in our considerations.
	I totally condemn the actions of Hezbollah, but all sovereign Governments have a duty to minimise the risk to civilians and the damage to civilian infrastructure. The United Nations human rights spokesperson, and its humanitarian co-ordinator, Jan Egeland, have both referred to the tragedy that will soon emerge as a result of people being trapped in their homes and cities, which they are not allowed to leave. Their water and electricity supplies are being cut off, and they face an utterly horrific humanitarian disaster.
	The international community needs to re-examine its role in this dispute. We were scheduled to discuss the Department for International Development White Paper today, some of which is relevant to our debate. It reminds us that all 191 United Nations member states
	"endorsed for the first time the groundbreaking principle of a 'responsibility to protect'. They agreed that while individual governments are responsible for the protection of their own people, the international community would no longer tolerate inaction by national governments in the face of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity within their borders."
	If we truly want to live up to those principles, we have a duty to make it clear and transparent when any party to this dispute has acted disproportionately, and to call for an immediate ceasefire. There have been reports of a week's delay until someone does something, but that is not the way to live up to our responsibilities. More than ever, we need to be seen to be an objective party in relation to the dispute. We need to make the civilian populations our first priority. More than ever, we need to show our real support for the moderate voices on all sides of the dispute, whether they are in Israel, Lebanon or the Palestinian community.

Patrick Cormack: I want to make three brief points.
	First, everyone has talked about the calm and measured speeches from those on the Front Benches, and I endorse that. However, on Monday, the Minister who will respond to the debate made an excellent appearance in the House, and I put it to him that it would be a good idea if the ambassadors of Syria, Iran and, indeed, Israel, were summoned to the Foreign Office, so that that calm, measured language could be conveyed to them, and they could be told how the Government felt about these matters. He responded disarmingly and frankly to say that he had not really thought of that, but that it was a good idea. I would like to know whether that idea has been put into practice. It is a time-honoured practice that, when a country seeks to exert influence, and when other countries behave in a less than entirely admirable way, their ambassadors are summoned. I think that that would be good in this instance.
	Secondly, I entirely endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the actions of the Syrian and Iranian Governments, which are utterly indefensible. No one in the House can begin to condone terrorism. On the other hand, at the moment, Israel needs friends who are, above all, candid. It needs people who will say, "Of course we believe absolutely in your right to exist. Of course we are totally dedicated and committed to that. But it is possible that in your response, disproportionate as I believe that it is in some respects, you are actually making your own position much more difficult." In that sense, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) made an eloquent speech, and I endorse what he said. I hope that the Government will talk to Israeli Ministers in that regard.
	Thirdly, the people who are rubbing their hands at the moment are those who support terrorism, in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever it is practised. The people who are delighted at the disproportionate response of Israel are the terrorists—the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the terrorists who are raining rockets on Israel and who precipitated this crisis by seizing that soldier a few weeks ago. The House cannot, because of our commitments over the last few years, fail to recognise that fact. That is why I so disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who calls for a withdrawal from Iraq. At the moment, that would send out all the worst signals, whatever one may think of the background.
	In the remaining seconds available to me, I appeal to the Minister to respond to my points, and to do everything possible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Emily Thornberry: I begin by saying that I speak as a friend of Israel and a friend to the Palestinians. There are many things that I would like to say, but I will restrict myself to one set of comments.
	The crisis in the middle east is a tremendous challenge to the international community, and I fear that we will not rise to it. We have not risen to it up to now. We have allowed a situation to continue to develop in the middle east that generates a huge amount of trouble, not only for those in the middle east but for those in the streets of London, those who travel on the buses in London and those who travel on the tube—my constituents. We need to be able to resolve the issue of the middle east because it continues to a generate a feeling of enormous resentment and of justification for the sort of terrorism that we are now suffering across the world.
	If we cannot, as an international community, develop international organisations that can resolve such situations, where are we heading? How can we just stand on the sidelines and say, "The neo-cons are dominating American foreign policy, and therefore we have to behave as though we have been cut off at the knees, and we can do nothing about it,"? How can it be that so little is done about the continuing open sore that is Palestine at the moment? How can the Israelis be allowed to build walls on Palestinian land and the road map be allowed simply to drift? How can that be? Now we see the bombing that is taking place across the middle east and the terrible suffering of civilians, and we seem to be able to do nothing.
	We must do something. We must rise to the challenge. We must work together as a whole community, because the world is small and getting smaller. It is our duty to play our part and to be brave, to speak to our friends and to ensure that we behave responsibly.

Quentin Davies: I shall make five points in three minutes, if I can manage that.
	First, I think that the Foreign Secretary was very wise to resist pressure to say whether she considered Israel's response to be proportionate or disproportionate. I am sorry that others were not quite so statesmanlike. It is extraordinarily difficult to say what is a proportionate and what is a disproportionate response in such circumstances. Is it proportionate not to take out stores of missiles because Hezbollah chooses to locate them in populated areas? That is scandalous in itself, and is of course the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, although no one has wanted to say that in the House today. The Government of Lebanon have simply acquiesced in the state of affairs for a very long time. They have made no attempt to enforce Security Council resolution 1559, and I am afraid that a great deal of responsibility now lies on their shoulders.
	Secondly, there is no doubt in the House and in the world about who is responsible for this. The middle east has been pretty calm for the past couple of years, and certainly during the past few months. There can be no doubt that it was an entirely gratuitous and deliberate decision by Hamas and Hezbollah—perhaps acting in concert, perhaps not—to attack Israeli soldiers, and to capture some Israeli soldiers and hold them hostage, that started the crisis. We do not do a service to the facts, and we certainly do not do a service to peace, if we do not recognise that, and if we try to put the attacker and the attacked and the innocent and the guilty on the same footing.
	Thirdly, many people are now saying that because there is great conflict and loss of life on all sides, the answer is for the international community to put pressure on the parties. That is understandable, but it has not been thought through properly. It is not possible to put pressure on Hezbollah or Hamas. It is not even possible to put pressure on their supporters, Syria and Iran. If we could put pressure on Iran we could solve the nuclear weapons problem, but we all know that we cannot do that. Putting pressure on the parties basically means putting pressure on Israel.
	What a perverse and absurd situation that would be. What a terrible, dangerous message to send around the world, and the middle east in particular: that if a country launches rocket attacks on Israel or attack Israeli soldiers, the international community will put pressure not on that country but on Israel. That really would be extremely perverse and extremely dangerous, and we should not do it.
	Fourthly, Israel must learn the lessons of its mistakes. In no circumstances should it carry out a prisoner exchange. It is, to some extent, paying a terrible price for having done that in the past.
	My final point is that the only solution is an international force. That is the only alternative to an indefinite buffer zone in southern Lebanon—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Louise Ellman: The events of recent weeks are part of an ongoing tragedy for all peoples of the middle east. Israel has suffered an unprovoked attack on its cities from Hezbollah in Lebanon after withdrawing from Lebanon, which is in contravention of international agreements and assurances given through the United Nations at the time. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza its cities have been subject to shelling from Gaza.
	Israel is entitled to defend itself, and it is rational for Israel, when subject to shelling and rocket attacks from Lebanon, to go to the source of that shelling and the source of those rockets. It is the responsibility of Hezbollah and the Lebanese that they have, disgracefully, put so many civilians in the line of fire, and that is absolutely to be deplored.
	It is important for the nature of Hezbollah to be recognised. Hezbollah is just one of the rejectionist terrorist organisations that are determined to prevent there ever being peace between the Israeli and the Palestinians. It is linked with Iran, which has described Israel as a cancerous tumour that should be removed. It is a terrorist organisation. It murdered more than 200 people in the Argentinian Jewish Centre in 1992. It was implicated with Yasser Arafat in bringing arms to the Palestinian Authority in violation of the Oslo agreement in 2002. It murdered Israeli civilians at the Matsuba kibbutz in 2002.
	What is the solution? The immediate solution is a ceasefire, yes, but it must include securing Israel's northern border so that its civilians are not subject to indiscriminate attacks, financed and supplied by Iran and issued through Hezbollah. The long-term solution must be a return to the road map, a negotiated agreement on a two-state solution of a Palestine and Israel based on the 1967 boundaries and with Jerusalem shared between those two states. Current events make that even more difficult to obtain and I hope that our Government will, through their diplomacy and negotiations, help to bring that situation about.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who both made it clear that they believed that Israel's response was not proportionate. As to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, we would have been much better off if Israel had exercised restraint. Indeed, Israel itself would have been a great deal better off. We have been down this road before, in 1982, and Hezbollah grew and sustained its strength out of the consequences of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that year. The consequences of the present invasion of Lebanon will be far more damaging to the Government of Lebanon than to Hezbollah, which is not in the best interests of all.
	In the very few moments available, I want to reflect on the dangerous overlap with our policy towards Iran—a source of considerable danger for the liberal west, as its values are so different. The situation is somewhat analogous to that of the Soviet Union, which was also a powerful force that was very different from us ideologically. My proposal is that we need to understand the country a little better and try to develop contacts with it, as I am attempting to do myself. However, Israel continues to accept the appalling injustice that has been meted out historically to the Palestinians and does not appear to be pursuing a policy that recognises that injustice. Until the Palestinians start to feel that Israel has a made, at the very least, a serious attempt to address it and to find a two-state solution, all these issues are going to get horribly mixed up—and with all the consequences for the strategic position of ourselves and our allies.
	We have been quite close to a two-state established solution. The Geneva accord was negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis of good will. The negotiations at Taba and then at Camp David came close. I would reject the interpretation that the Palestinians missed an important opportunity, as they could not realistically have accepted what was on offer. What the Government of Israel and the Israelis need to understand is that until the Palestinian issue is addressed, Israel will never have peace. Until that is done, we are going to get into these horrible complications of living in a world split between Islamic and our own ideologies, in which the state of Israel is going to be a horrible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The letter of the three-minute limit expires at this point, but perhaps its spirit could survive for a few more minutes.

Barbara Keeley: I want to focus my comments on the impact of the conflict on Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, particularly women and children, and the need for the international community to work to bring an end to the fighting and return to negotiations.
	As we see, the media show us harrowing pictures from both sides of the conflict every day. Last night, two Israeli children, who were brothers, were killed after Hezbollah's Katyusha rockets hit the Arab-Israeli town of Nazareth. We know that more than 200 people, many of them civilians, have been killed in Lebanon. That reality is echoed in the calls of the International Women's Commission for a Just and Sustainable Peace between Palestine and Israel. The IWC is an international body of Palestinian, Israeli and international women, established in 2005 under the auspices of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. At a recent emergency meeting, IWC members requested the Quartet to intervene to stop fighting and expressed their deep concern at the current crisis in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, which they see as threatening the region as a whole. They called for an immediate return to the political process, led by the international community.
	Groupings of women in the middle east have for many years kept the discussions going across the political divide as continued dialogue is the only way to return to the political process. Before coming to the Chamber today, I spoke to two representatives from the IWC in a conference call. They were Professor Galia Golan, an Israeli member, and Miss Samia Bamia, a Palestinian member. I shall give the House a brief account of some of their thoughts and suggestions on the situation.
	The two representatives felt that the public internationally are ignoring the war in Gaza, but there is still a large toll of civilian deaths in that conflict. The Israeli representative said that while there was public support in Israel for the action described by the military as weakening Hezbollah, that support is lessening as the conflict deepens. Among women, there is a growing feeling that the response is not commensurate with the incursions that cause the military action. Both the women stressed the need for the international community to intervene to achieve a negotiated withdrawal, a ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners, and they are looking to the Quartet to assist that return to negotiations.
	The Israeli representative, Professor Galia Golan, also spoke about stopping the boycott of funds to the Palestinian Government. While she had little sympathy for Hamas, she felt that it was wrong to ignore the levels of hardship caused by the boycott and that it was now starting to weaken the voice of moderates. Both representatives repeatedly stressed the importance of the need for intervention by the UK, the Quartet and the international community. In fact, from Palestine, Samia Bamia said that there was anger growing at the feeling that the international community was watching, but not acting to help a return to the political process.
	Both representatives highlighted the fact that women's voices need to be heard. The Israeli representative repeatedly said that there was a gender divide in public opinion. Although women felt that it was terrible to be bombed, they felt that the conflict had to stop.
	The IWC wants to continue a dialogue and to build understanding, even in these difficult times. We also discuss what is needed if a ceasefire can be brought about. It was felt that UNIFIL had lost trust and was no help in protecting the border. It would be helpful, in terms of responding to the people who took part in the conference call, if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell the House anything more about the proposals for that force when he responds to the debate.
	I also hope that the Minister will be able to find a way to support the work of the IWC for a just and sustainable Palestinian and Israeli peace. As I have said, women have played a vital role in conflict resolution and peace building in other conflicts. We should not ignore their role, but support their efforts as they work across the divide and urge both sides to cease fire and return to negotiation.

Julian Lewis: As I am morally bound to speak for just three minutes—and I shall do so—I shall make only two points. The first is to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he said that various people will be rubbing their hands with glee at the developments that have taken place. In particular, the strategists in Tehran will be doing so, because Hezbollah would not have initiated this cycle of violence and counter-action without orders and permission from Iran. We have to ask why Iran would want to give that permission. The answer is obvious when we look at the proportion of time spent in this very debate on the issue of the confrontation between Israel and Lebanon, compared with the time spent on the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons. This development is assisting Iran in its quest to become a nuclear power, and we should draw appropriate lessons from that.
	I thought today that, for the first time in nine years in this House, I would agree with something said by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), when he told the story of the frog and the scorpion and how they both drowned because the scorpion stings the frog in mid-river, despite not being able to swim. However, for some reason, the right hon. Gentleman chose to change the ending. The ending actually is that as they are both drowning, the scorpion admits to the frog that it knew that it would also die, but it could not help stinging because that is in its nature.
	What is the nature of some of the groups that are operating in the conflict today? We owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has just published a new book, "Celsius 7/7", which traces some of the ideological roots of Islamism. He quotes one of its founding fathers as saying, when talking about the ideal Islamist state, that
	"a state of this sort cannot evidently restrict the scope of its activities...It seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity in consonance with its moral norms and programmes of social reform. In such a state, no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this perspective the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states."
	What we are dealing with in Hamas and Hezbollah are totalitarian movements. This House can prate all it likes about immediate ceasefires and two-state solutions, but as long as there are actors on the scene who do not wish for anything else but to create a new holocaust as they deny the last one, those solutions will not suffice.

Stewart Hosie: I wish briefly to take the Minister for the Middle East back to the subject of the preparations for the evacuation. I asked him earlier this week whether the Royal Navy would evacuate not only those who are United Kingdom passport holders, but their dependents who might not be. He gave a clear answer, but I ask him that question again because a news broadcast of last night had a caption saying that "UK passport holders" had been asked to assemble. Can he look into this as a matter of urgency, in case a slightly incorrect message is going out?
	We all view with great concern what is going in Lebanon, and in particular the potential for the collapse of democracy there and the very real possibility of a new civil war. That alone should be an encouragement to us all to support the creation of a United Nations intervention force with, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, a very strong mandate indeed. We cannot expect a fragile Government in the fragile democracy of Lebanon to disband or disarm Hezbollah on their own. That would certainly lead to civil war, and I suspect that the last thing Israel needs is another failed state on its northern border.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) talked about the perception that we were not being even-handed. Some of the comments coming out of the west have not been even-handed, but we must be so. That means that when we call for the kidnapped soldiers to be released immediately and for the missile strikes to stop immediately, we must also call for the Israeli shelling to stop and for the collective punishment of those in Gaza and Lebanon, who might not be Hamas voters or Hezbollah fighters, to cease at the same time. For that to happen, the immediate fighting must come to an end, and I find it extraordinary that the UK Government have thus far equivocated, even on calling for an immediate ceasefire to effect those ends.
	As we all know, the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people is an open sore. It continues to radicalise people and to act as a recruiting sergeant throughout the Muslim world and the middle east. Therefore, we must deliver the long-term solution—the two-state solution of Palestine and Israel. We must return to the road map.
	The UK has a massive role to play in that. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a G8 member and a large state within the European Union, it has a great deal of weight that it can use. However, at the moment I fear—not least because of unguarded comments in the press earlier this week—that in many parts of the world the UK is seen as a client of the USA, and that must cease. There must be a coherent and robust position to bring all sides around the negotiating table and demand an immediate ceasefire; that must happen as quickly as possible.

Keith Simpson: This debate was called for by a number of hon. Members and hon. Friends, not least those of us who are regular attendees of middle east debates in Westminster Hall. I know that the Government were nervous about holding this debate—and, as a former Whip, I can imagine that it was constrained in its time as much as possible. However, the Government should not have been worried about it. This debate has proved that Members can argue very strongly and passionately about an issue that is very important. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, the current crisis is perhaps one of the greatest in the middle east that we have had to face. I urge Ministers to bear in mind Members' calls for another statement or debate on this important subject, and to provide one perhaps next week.
	Many Members have spoken, some of them under the enormous constraint of having only three minutes, and I shall not attempt to fill up my 10 minutes by reading out a list of names and making a few brief comments; instead, I shall pick out a few speeches.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) made his maiden speech in the middle of this important debate, and I congratulate him on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who rightly pointed out that this debate is on not the middle east but international affairs, spoke with passion—and within the allotted time—on the very important subjects of Darfur and Burma. I note that he has tabled a question on Burma for next week's Foreign Affairs Question Time.
	The Foreign Secretary spoke with a degree of caution, given the minefield through which she is attempting to steer Government policy, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) spoke with great reasonableness. But as you might expect me to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) spoke very well indeed—I say that not because he happens to lead for the Conservatives on foreign affairs—across a wide waterfront about middle east issues. Importantly, he talked about what needs to be done.
	Members in all parts of the House, whatever position they adopted on the middle east, agreed that this conflict has the potential not only to be highly local, with an immediate impact on people living in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon, but to draw in other countries as well, and to be a nightmare scenario for all of us.
	So the real question that we face is, can Britain actually make a difference in this crisis? Here, I want to make a few points, some of which reinforce those made not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, but by Members in all parts of the House. First, the British Government do have a role to play. Although, in a classically British way, we often underestimate ourselves and think that we perhaps do not have influence, we have direct influence over most of our allies. We do have influence over the United States of America, and it is important that, at times, behind closed doors—if not always in public—we be frank and honest with the Americans. Indeed, we can go to places in the middle east that the Americans cannot, which is a very important point.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, this crisis has again proved—as virtually every crisis in the middle east does—the lack of any cohesion and direction on the part of the international community, particularly all the great powers of one kind or another. The point that I take from this debate is that, if we resolve the immediate conflict in the next two or three weeks—perhaps we will—the danger is that, once again, most of the major Governments outside the area will wash their hands, walk away and look at some other crisis. We cannot do that again, not only because of the immediate crisis involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas, but because, as many Members said, of the activities of Iran in particular, which is playing a very dangerous game. Iran is sponsoring terrorism that is aimed directly against many countries in the middle east, including Arab countries. Some of those activities have resulted in the death and injury of British military personnel, and we cannot walk away from that.
	The Government must take the following courses of action. First, they must make certain that the period when military operations are given a chance is as short as possible. The Israelis have every right to protect themselves against terrorism and rocket and shell attacks but, as many hon. Members noted, they will be only too well aware that there can be no long-term military solution. The conflict can be resolved only by political means.
	In addition, many hon. Members spoke about what is happening in Lebanon. My fear is that, although the Israelis have every right to root out the Hezbollah rockets, they might inflict so much damage that the state of Lebanon will be literally knocked out. If that happens, Israel will be in danger of losing the support of world opinion, which will render a political solution much more difficult to achieve.
	Secondly, the Government must energise the international community. We are a member of the UN Security Council, and I look forward to hearing what actions Ministers propose to take there. Thirdly, as many hon. Members noted, there is the problem of getting humanitarian aid to Lebanon, the west bank and Gaza.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I spoke to the Lebanese ambassador earlier today, who said that the problem was not one of money but of getting aid to communities. He emphasised that, with 500,000 people crossing fields and walking along roads to get to Beirut, there is likely to be a civil disorder crisis in that city in the next two or three days. We look to the British Government, in particular, to take a lead on that.
	Finally, I believe that the House of Commons is justified in taking a view on this crisis, and that the Government should not feel that it should not be debated. Strong and genuine views have been expressed on all sides of the House today, but mostly in a constructive manner. This Government resemble the Government who faced a series of international crises some 60 years ago. In the late 1930s, faced with an even greater crisis than this, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, said that his Government were hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. This Government may have to do the same.

Kim Howells: This has been a very good debate, albeit a very short one. It has been about the huge issues—matters of life and death—that at present affect the lives of thousands of British nationals and millions of Lebanese and Israelis, among others.
	We heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies), and I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing him well.
	Quite rightly, the debate focused on the grave situation in Lebanon and Israel, but many other topics of equal gravity were touched on. The hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), among others, reminded us about the other huge issues facing the world today, such as Tibet, Darfur, development aid, debt relief, AIDS, and Burma. Another matter raised in the debate was the argument for an international arms trade treaty—something that is very close to my own heart.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade summoned the Burmese ambassador to the Foreign Office—he has also written to Burma's Foreign Minister for the same purpose—to express our concerns about a range of human rights issues, such as the large-scale abuses of ethnic groups, forced labour, restrictions to religious freedom, the use of sexual violence and the exploitation of children. My right hon. Friend also called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait for questions on Tuesday for his answer.
	It is worth spending a moment on Darfur, which has been raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. The UK reaffirmed its pledge of £20 million for the African Union force for this financial year. That is out of a world pledge of £260 million. I am told that the amount pledged is likely to be more than enough to meet the force's short-term needs but we will continue to put pressure on others to contribute more.
	We believe that the African Union force in Darfur needs to be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. The Sudanese Government have not agreed to that. Kofi Annan has said that he hopes to see a UN force in Darfur. The Security Council has taken a strong line. The African Union wants such a force and so do many leading African countries. We will continue to press the Sudanese Government to accept it and we call on others to do the same.
	We have taken the very good advice of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and summoned the Iranian and Syrian ambassadors. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly to the Prime Minister of Lebanon and the Foreign Secretary of Israel, among others. It was good advice and we were glad to take it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kim Howells: No. I have little time, I am afraid.
	I share the concerns expressed tonight about Lebanon and Israel. This Government are committed to helping to resolve the crisis. We want an immediate end to the violence and our priority remains to create conditions that will allow a credible and sustainable ceasefire. I assure the House that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I are working very hard to achieve that. I will be visiting the area immediately. In fact I would have been there now if it were not for this debate. I hope to speak to a number of leading regional players in the surrounding capitals as well as in the immediate area to try to help to find a way through the crisis.
	We have supported the efforts of the UN team and of the EU high representative, Javier Solana, by providing them with transport and logistical assistance on the ground. As I made clear from the Dispatch Box on Monday, we have repeatedly urged the Israelis in the strongest terms to act proportionately, to conform to international law, and to avoid the appalling civilian death and suffering we are witnessing on our television screens. We expect no less from Israel and the world should demand no less from those who, for their own twisted reasons, supply Hezbollah with rockets, guns and finance.
	We have called on Syria and Iran to stop their support for Hezbollah and to end their interference in Lebanese internal affairs, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680. Syria and Iran will be judged on how they conduct themselves during this crisis.

Mohammad Sarwar: The first official Lebanese death toll confirms that 300 people have been killed, 1,000 wounded and 500,000 displaced. On the Israeli side, 29 people have been killed. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, says that Israeli and Hezbollah leaders may face war crimes charges over civilian casualties. How should the Government hold both parties to account?

Kim Howells: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend had been here earlier, he would have heard this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) properly raised the issue. Louise Arbour is someone whom we have to take very seriously. This is not a one-sided dispute and the evils of the destruction of civilians, their homes and communities are by no means limited to one side. I have tried to call in a balanced way for a reasonable response and for a cessation of violence.
	I said earlier that Syria and Iran will be judged on how they conduct themselves during the crisis. Key players in the middle east are among those who will judge Syria and Iran. We have heard too little about countries such as Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which have broken ranks with the old ways of refusing to criticise the actions of countries that behave in that way. They are extremely concerned about this conflict. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes were right to argue that we should continue to use our great historical network of diplomatic contacts in that region so that we can act in concert to take the heat out of this terrible conflict.
	In the few moments that are left, let me turn to the question of the evacuation. It is extraordinarily important. As we speak, some 1,300 people are being evacuated on HMS Bulwark and HMS York. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), they include families of British nationals who may not be British passport holders. They also include many of our friends from the Commonwealth and Europe. We needed their help when the tsunami took place; the reaction to this terrible disaster is a worldwide one, and we need every ally that we can find in situations such as this.

Phyllis Starkey: I have raised with the Minister the case of my constituent Mr. Saleh, who is a Lebanese citizen with a British wife whose main home is here in Britain. He may not be able to be evacuated because he has not been able to get British citizenship. Will my hon. Friend take up his case for me?

Kim Howells: If my hon. Friend will send me the details, we will certainly take a look at it.
	So far, approximately 2,800 people are being evacuated. It is an enormous number. A further evacuation is planned by sea tomorrow. It has been an enormous exercise.
	If the events of this last week or so have taught us anything, it ought to have taught us that we must never and can never retreat behind imaginary fortress walls around these islands. The enemies of democracy will always bring the fight to us, wherever and whenever they can. The first duty of any British Government is to defend the lives and liberties of our citizens here and across the world. That is why we must continue to maintain the most professional armed forces in the world and why it is vital that those brave men and women are directed by a democratically elected Government. It is why we must maintain the superb work undertaken in the world's most difficult areas by our Department for International Development and why we must deploy and use to the best effect the great skills of those who staff our diplomatic missions abroad.
	The sight of the Royal Navy's grey funnels off the coast of Lebanon, whether they were seen directly by those who wished to be evacuated or indirectly on television by their loved ones around the world must have been one of the sweetest sights that they will ever see. All of us must pay enormous tribute to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, which supported it, and to all our armed forces who have taken part and will continue to take part in the operation. I am not sure that people have understood the danger in which they operated off the coast of Lebanon or the danger to the helicopters that flew over Lebanon. This is an extremely difficult situation.
	We are very worried, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, about British citizens who are trapped in difficult areas in the south of Lebanon. We must find ways of getting them out. We are working with our colleagues in Germany, the United Nations and other countries to mount convoys and try to get the agreement of all the parties to the dispute to secure safe passage for those trapped individuals to points of safety. We know that a United Nations ferry is going into Tyre in the south. We hope that we can get many of our citizens and nationals and their relations on to that boat.
	The Government will try to live up to the challenge of using the superb professionalism among our armed forces and our diplomatic service to help the United Nations and the international community to bring peace to Lebanon and the wider middle east. That must be the message that goes forward from this debate tonight.

Jonathan R Shaw: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS

Harpenden Memorial Hospital

Peter Lilley: I present a petition signed by 8,713 local residents, including doctors, nurses and other employees who have worked at Harpenden memorial hospital and patients and relatives of patients who have been treated at the hospital, all of whom deplore the proposed closure of beds at the hospital. They say that the relatively small savings achieved by closing the ward are overshadowed by the huge impact on the care provided at the hospital for the most needy, frail, elderly and terminally ill people in the Harpenden area. They say that the closure is a breach of promises made at a public meeting in September 2005 when the people of Harpenden were told by the primary care trust that closing or running down the hospital would be bad for patient care and financially disadvantageous.
	The petition states:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to work with the St. Albans and Harpenden Primary Care Trust to ensure that the beds at Harpenden Memorial Hospital are not closed.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Crawley Hospital

Laura Moffatt: I present a petition of 32,000 signatures on behalf of 15,000 Crawley residents. The petition was tirelessly organised by Mrs. Rebecca O'Gorman of Crawley and concerns the closure of our accident and emergency department at Crawley hospital, which remains a difficult issue for many of us in Crawley.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to re-instate the Accident and Emergency services at Crawley Hospital to accommodate 24 hour a day emergency demands.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Asbestos Storage

Bob Spink: This petition is similar to one I presented last week, but residents have collected another 200 signatures, which they wanted me to present to the House. I am grateful for this opportunity to do so.
	The petition is against asbestos storage on the Manor trading estate, which is an inappropriate site due to its proximity to schools and residential areas. I am grateful to Councillors Jackie Govier, Bill Dick and Colin Riley for their work fighting for their community on the issue.
	The petitioners say that the proposal will allow the storage of hazardous asbestos waste, which would introduce unacceptable risk and increased pressure of use of local roads and that it is particularly inappropriate in view of the immediate proximity of residential homes and a primary school. The petitioners further believe that there are much more appropriate sites for that activity in the local area and elsewhere, which would not cause such conflict.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore implore the House of Commons to call upon the Government to do all within its power to ensure that Essex County Council reject the application as requested by the Member of Parliament for Castle Point.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Saltaire Roundabout

Philip Davies: I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of residents of Saltaire and surrounding areas of my constituency about congestion at Saltaire roundabout. The issue is extremely important to my constituency and I have previously raised it in the House with the Secretary of State for Transport. I am delighted to endorse the petition wholeheartedly.
	I put on record my thanks to Rachel Adamson who spent a lot of time putting the petition together and collecting signatures. In only a short time, she collected 413 signatures, which is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of people who are concerned about the issue. The fact that she could collect so many signatures in such a short period shows how important the issue is.
	The petition
	Declares that the petitioners are extremely concerned at the danger to pedestrians and motorists of the current levels of congestion at Saltaire roundabout and believe that this is the most pressing transport priority within the Bradford district.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to recognise the importance and urgency of this problem and to ensure that the Highways Agency works with Bradford Metropolitan District Council and local residents to come up with a workable solution.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Winchcombe Hospital

Laurence Robertson: This petition, signed by 3,686 people—and growing—which is a large percentage of the population of the area concerned, expresses their objection to the proposed closure of Winchcombe hospital, which is in my constituency. The petition states:
	The petition of the residents of Winchcombe and others, declares their objection to the proposals by the local Primary Care Trusts to close Winchcombe Hospital, a hospital which treats a good many elderly people, among others.
	The petitioners believe that these plans are inconsistent with the Prime Minister's and the government's stated objective of moving care closer to patients' homes and contrary to the Prime Minister's and the government's direction that community hospitals should not be closed in response to short-term budgetary pressures.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to reject the financial plans being proposed by Gloucestershire's Primary Care Trusts, and, in particular, to direct them to enhance the services provided by Winchcombe Hospital rather than to close it.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

DRAKELOW TUNNELS (WORCESTERSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Jonathan Shaw.]

Richard Taylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, please may I ask you to pass on my sincere thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate? I lost the chance to hold it last week, under rather unusual circumstances that completely terrified and floored me at the time. It is also a great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). Previous clashes between us have been rather confrontational—when he was in the Department of Health—but this debate is friendly, not confrontational. It is a joy to talk about the unique collection of antiquities that happens to be in my patch. This is a matter of great importance to many of my constituents in the north-west corner of my constituency, where Worcestershire borders South Staffordshire—in the villages of Wolverley, Cookley and Caunsall, parts of Kidderminster, and Kinver, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). He is supportive, as is the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin).
	I have raised the matter now because I am aware that English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been undertaking a heritage protection review, which I believe will lead to the Government's heritage White Paper later this year. A letter to me from the deputy secretary of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings ended with this sentence:
	"It is yet to be clear how effective the Review's proposals will be, but the Drakelow site might well be worth raising in any debate."
	That is why I am raising the Drakelow site.
	First, there are the tunnels. I am grateful to Paul Stokes for his volume "Drakelow Unearthed", which I found in the Kidderminster library, which goes into great detail. Drakelow sits at the southern end of a ridge of soft red sandstone in which there are many caves. When Coventry had the tremendous blitz in the second world war, one of the factories making engines for aircraft was bombed out and it was realised that a safe place for making aero engines was needed. Drakelow was picked on because it is so easy to tunnel into the hills. In 1941, 160 ft below the hill top, the tunnels were started, at a cost of £285,000. They were intended to be a safe factory for those people displaced from Coventry.
	The factory was in full production by 1943 at a cost of more than £1 million, so even in those days costs went up tremendously. Unbelievably, under the hill there are 3.5 miles of tunnels and 250,000 sq ft of working space. The site became literally a secret underground city. For those who are interested in second world war aircraft, the factory was building radial engines for the Blenheim and Pegasus engines for Sunderlands. Production carried on until those engines were no longer needed. I believe that the factory was involved in the production of the first jet engines for Meteors, which some of us will remember with great affection.
	Following that, the site was used for storage. It was then transformed and in 1958 it became one of the safe sites for regional government, if regional government had to move out of the main centres. Again, the site catered for approximately 350 people from all Government Departments. A home defence review was undertaken following the change of Government in 1979. The facility was again upgraded, this time at a cost of something like £2 million, and it became a regional government headquarters, rather than a regional seat of government. However, only about a quarter of the site was used. The site was sold off in 1993 and has since been opened for occasional tours. It is privately owned.
	The icing on the cake is what is on top of the hill. There is an iron age earthworks. There is a fort on the end of the hill that is protected on three sides by steep cliffs, with earthworks on the fourth side. It is a scheduled ancient monument that dates from 600 BC, so I am told. Next, in historical order, there is a large collection of rock-cut houses. As I said, the hill is made of soft red sandstone that is easy to tunnel into. Caves have been inhabited there since at least 1600. They were enlarged in 1769 and 1770 to accommodate the labourers who were building the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal to connect the black country with the River Severn. They were enlarged yet again in 1850 and this time buildings were added in front. A local iron foundry master built those properties for his workers and made the development look like a Swiss village, with a fascinating little school and everything that was needed.
	Edmund Simons, an Oxford scholar, has studied the dwellings. He describes them as
	"a number of complexes of rock-cut dwellings which are amongst the best preserved (yet least understood) in the UK."
	He also describes them as
	"an exceptionally important 'cave' village of cave houses and rock-cut structures".
	In "Historic Worcestershire", W. Salt Brassington described the dwellings as
	"the most picturesque group in a natural amphitheatre below the earthworks of an ancient camp."
	He waxed quite lyrical as he went on to write:
	"In comparatively few places in the world are civilised people found still living after the manner of primitive man".
	He wrote that in 1894. He also cited the following quote, although I cannot find its origin:
	"in hollow holes, like swarms of tiny ants, in sunless depths of caverns".
	He continued by writing that in that part of the Severn district people
	"have lived in caves from time immemorial".
	A monument to Richard Baxter is also in the same area. He was a non-conformist preacher in the 1600s who was described in the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" as
	"one of the most learned seventeenth century divines".
	His well-known memorial, which was raised in 1875, is a landmark in the town of Kidderminster, and it is used as a perch by passing pigeons. He has one finger raised to the heavens, and the dedication reads:
	"From 1641 to 1660 this Town was the scene of the Labours of Richard Baxter renowned equally for his Christian Learning and his Pastoral Fidelity.
	In a stormy and divided age he advocated unity and comprehension pointing the way to 'The Everlasting Rest'."
	Most significant of all is the line:
	"Churchmen and Nonconformists united to raise this memorial."
	On top of the tunnels there are many antiquities, but recently there has been a threat to the tunnels. A developer wished to establish a training facility for unemployed people from the midlands, and although the development was small to begin with, it was probably intended to become much bigger. The local council turned it down—thank goodness—because it is green belt land and there were no transport links, and because of the chance of damage to the iron-age fort, the area surrounding the Baxter memorial, and the rock-cut houses. I believe that there is a precedent: in 1967, the then Home Secretary wanted to build a prison for 1,200 people in Wolverley—the next-door village—on the site of a former camp for American forces, but Sir Tatton Brinton, the MP for the area between 1964 to 1974, opposed the development. A public inquiry ruled against the development:
	"The Home Office had failed to justify the siting of a prison involving many new permanent houses in a vulnerable part of the Green Belt and the spoiling of the attractive character of the area for an indefinite period".

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman kindly referred to my support. I want to put on the record the fact that I much appreciate his initiative in seeking the debate, and I congratulate him on securing it. He has given an excellent exposition, and my constituents in the Kinver area would wholly and utterly support everything that he has said.

Richard Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
	May I ask the Minister one or two questions about the heritage White Paper? Will it address the problems of complex sites such as Drakelow? In a letter to me, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings said—I hope that it got this right—that
	"Among the Review's aims is simpler but more effective treatment of complicated sites of the Drakelow kind, which have various conservation designations and many layers of history combining structures and landscape."
	Does the White Paper address the problems of antiquities that are privately owned? Some fabulous stained-glass windows in our area are privately owned, and no one can see them. I fully realise that people who own something like that, and who intend to sell it, need to accept the best price, and if they are thinking of developing it for tourism, they need help to do so. Does the White Paper say anything about that?
	I have a dream for my constituency. Sadly, in my area, industry is declining, with a few notable exceptions, but tourism is building up. Already, we have some exciting tourist sites. There is the Severn Valley railway and a huge heritage railway facility is being developed; there are also the canals and the beautiful Litchfield basin, which has been dry for years. It is being dug out to be refilled. We have a carpet museum on the drawing board. There are so many attractions, and it would be splendid if the Drakelow complex, demonstrating how it was used for aircraft production, the regional seat of government and everything else, could be added to the industrial heritage tour that we have set our sights on.
	In a letter to me, the head of conservation at the Council for British Archaeology, Dr. Gill Chitty, states that
	"it seems that this complex and fascinating group of historic sites and buildings would benefit from a conservation plan—a study to identify what is uniquely significant about the heritage of the site, to bring together the views of all those concerned with its future and to set out how it can best be used and managed for the greatest public benefit."
	She goes on to say that she hopes that we will see in the White Paper
	"a more integrated and better informed system for dealing with the protection of complex, multi-period sites like Drakelow Tunnels."
	I will finish by explaining what I think the word "Drakelow" means. "Drake" is a well known old English expression for dragon. "Low" refers to the caves immemorial where the dragon has lain low. According to a popular story, it was last seen in 1591. I am hoping that if we have a real plan for the preservation of that unique site, maybe the dragon will feel safe and we will see it again in the coming years.

David Lammy: I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) for securing the debate and for the opportunity to hear about a fascinating site. I, too, welcome this exchange, which is taking place in a friendly manner.
	The historic environment is unique in telling the story of how we have interacted with our surroundings since prehistoric times. The Drakelow tunnels and the surrounding area are a rich illustration of that. In one small area, we have an iron age prehistoric hill fort, cave dwellings that are believed to date from the 19th century, the Richard Baxter monument, and the tunnels themselves, which alone provide a fascinating insight into the second world war and the cold war, as illustrated by the hon. Gentleman. I can appreciate why he considers the site to be of huge importance not just to his constituents, but to the region.
	To set the context, it may help if set out the various regimes that we use to protect the historic environment. First, there are national systems designed to protect important historic assets. For buildings, that is the listed building system that protects buildings of special architectural or historic interest, graded at grade I, grade II* or grade II. For below ground archaeology, there is the system of scheduling, which is used to protect sites of national importance.

Ian Austin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing this important debate and on his fascinating speech. Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine the proposal made by my constituent, Mr. Roger Bruton, who served his country with great distinction first in the Army and later in the Territorials, where he was charged with responsibility for defending the Drakelow tunnels and the regional government? He believes that Drakelow should become a museum dedicated to the second world war and the cold war years, which he says would be a major boost to tourism and the economy of the west midlands, especially because of the large number of American servicemen who were stationed in the area.

David Lammy: That is certainly an interesting idea that should be taken forward locally. My hon. Friend will know that there are several museums in the area, including the Hack Green nuclear bunker museum at Nantwich. When we look to see how we can preserve our heritage, it is important that we work with people at museums, libraries and archives, because they have the expertise to identify and facilitate funding lines.
	Let me return to the current protection arrangements. Alongside the scheduling and listing regimes that I described, we have a regime for protecting individual assets, and there are also tools to protect areas of significance. Most importantly, local authorities have a duty to designate conservation areas, which are areas of special architectural or historic interest that have a character and appearance deserving of preservation and enhancement.
	Those are the main statutory protection systems, but there are also a range of non-statutory protections available to historic assets. English Heritage is responsible for developing registers of historic parks, gardens and battlefields. In addition, almost half of all local authorities, including Wyre Forest district council, have developed lists of locally significant buildings. Information about a building, place or area can also be captured on the national monuments record or on the local historic environment record.
	What do all those designation systems achieve? In some cases, specific designation regimes carry specific protections. For example, listed buildings are managed through the system of listed building consent, scheduled ancient monuments are managed through the system of scheduled monument consent, and some change in conservation areas is managed through specific conservation area consent. However, those individual regulatory regimes are designed to deal with only a small proportion of our historic assets. Most change to our historic environment is managed not through those regimes but as part of the planning system, whereby information about an historic asset may be taken into account as a material consideration in determining a planning application.
	The Drakelow tunnels site is a good illustration of how the various regimes come together, because several protection systems are in operation. The tunnels themselves are neither listed buildings nor scheduled ancient monuments. They were considered for listing by English Heritage in the late 1990s as part of a thematic review of the nine cold war regional seats of government. Following that review, two of the regional seats, at Nottingham and Cambridge, were listed at grade II. The iron age hill fort that sits above them is a scheduled ancient monument, while the Richard Baxter monument is grade II listed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a complex site with different systems bearing on it. Those protection systems sit alongside mainstream planning controls and the priority given to heritage in the Wyre Forest district council plan.
	I have outlined a complex system of heritage protection in England. Indeed, we acknowledge that it is far too complex to be easily understandable. That is why we are finalising plans to make it more streamlined, open and accountable. We want to simplify our heritage protection systems and make it easier for local communities to engage with decisions that shape their environment.
	In the time we have left, I do not want to go into the detail of our proposed reforms. Instead, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the 2004 document that the Department published, which sets out the proposed reforms in detail, or to the transcript of my recent appearance, with Baroness Andrews, before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, it may help if I briefly outline the key changes that we propose.
	First, we intend to simplify the designation system by developing a new unified register of historic sites and buildings of England. That will bring together the current systems of listing buildings, scheduling ancient monuments and registering parks, gardens and battlefields under a single designation regime. The register will make designation decisions easier to understand and dramatically improve the quality of information available about designated sites to enable owners, communities and local authorities to understand more about their historic assets.
	At the same time as reforming designation, we will encourage local authorities to make greater use of local listing to provide recognition for locally important sites that may not be suitable candidates for national designation. As I have said, many authorities already make extensive use of local lists. Wyre Forest district council has already designated 300 locally listed buildings in Kidderminster and 350 in Stourport. We want to make that local designation process easier, and encourage more local authorities to use it.
	Secondly, we want to streamline and simplify the consent regimes associated with national designation. We will introduce a new heritage consent regime, which will bring together scheduled monument consent and listed building consent in a single system.
	We will introduce new management agreements for historic sites. They will encourage constructive partnership between owners, managers, regulators and communities in deciding how best to manage change to complex sites. Developing those partnerships will enable us to reduce bureaucratic burdens on owners and local authorities by reducing the volume of individual consent applications.
	Pilot studies have already shown that the reforms can bring genuine benefits. We intend to publish a White Paper setting out the detail of our reforms later in the year. Once implemented, the reforms are likely to have some impact on a site such as the Drakelow tunnels. Let me outline possible matters of special interest. The improved designation documentation would increase understanding and appreciation of the listed memorial and the scheduled iron age hill fort. The move to encourage greater use of local listing is also relevant. Local listing can make it clear, when planning applications are made, that people treasure the area and building under consideration, and that specific obligations go with it. Wyre Forest district council is already making extensive use of local lists. However, it is worth underlining that the Drakelow tunnels are not currently listed or scheduled. We have not, as far as I am aware, received any recent application to list them.
	The Department will consider any application to have a building or site listed or scheduled, though the tunnels have already been considered for listing by English Heritage. It is also worth pointing out that most change to historic sites is managed not through individual designation systems, but as part of the planning system. I understand that the original planning application for the site in January 2006 has now been withdrawn. If and when a revised application is made, it will be for the local planning authority to determine, in line with the policies set out in its local plan, including those that relate to the historic environment, the future of the site, what is appropriate and how matters should proceed.
	I hope that I have been able to underline to the hon. Gentleman the importance of the historic environment and the reforms that we are trying to introduce to make the system easier to understand and more open, transparent and democratic. Those reforms will also assist locally. However, local things can be done and, if the enthusiasm that he has shown today reflects how local people feel about the site, it is likely to be preserved for many generations to enjoy.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Seven o'clock.